Deletion of List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8

Comment: This can become a useful summary article. Convert the deprecated inline exlinks to create "legitimate" edlink|redlinks where apropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: Normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion.  There are lots of articles that contain links to official web sites, such as List of software for molecular mechanics modeling per .  Yet for some strange reason, these other articles haven't been nominated for deletion.  I asked Noiratsi to create an RfC to see if there's community support against official links, but they declined to do so.  I really don't know what to do if editors refuse to seek consensus against , but I do know that normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion.  The topic is obviously |notable given the significant coverage of |reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Indeed, Noiratsi's nomination doesn't even make the argument that the topic is not notable.  What's more, Noiratsi even approved of the article when it was created (sorry, I don't have the diff- I'll try to dig it up later, I'm going back to sleep now.)   Again, this is an content dispute masquerading as an AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:External links (WP:ELOFFICIAL||WP:ELOFFICIAL||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: lists of external links, especially for commercial products for sale, are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia.  See , criteria 2.   The concept itself should be discussed in the Start menu article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM)

Comment: If your argument is that the subject of the list itself is notable, even though we have no Wikipedia articles on the majority of the list items, then we get back to the result of a "keep" here being a list of redlinks. You can't have a list of external links as that votes the policy at 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM)

Comment: per nom. In addition, |Wikipedia is not a technical manual
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: per . The argument that we need to provide a list of X where none of X actually exist as articles is fallacious - lists in the encyclopedia are lists of ''articles'', not lists of external links
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM)

Comment: per  - this list serves absolutely no purpose other than to show users which programmes offer a start menu. The article is encyclopaedic and given the nature of the content which it aims to cover, there is not much more that it can cover that wouldn't be able to be covered in the article on the list of features removed from Windows 8 or the Evolution section on the Start menu article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: I just want to be clear that the article is a stub.  Windows 8 is brand new and the article can be expanded and improved through normal editing process.  Even if I'm wrong about , that's no reason to delete the article.  The main issue here is whether this topic meets .  I believe the article, although a stub, is well-sourced, and many more sources can be found.  So, over the course of the next 10 days, I will be creating a list of secondary sources.  This seems like a pointless exercise since anyone can do a Google News search, but if that's what I need to do to save the article, that's what I'll do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:External links (WP:ELOFFICIAL||WP:GNG)