Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reviewing toolbar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Due to low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing toolbar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has existed practically untouched since August 2005. I really don't think Wikipedia needs an article about an individual toolbar. It may meet WP:N, as lots of online help articles would have been written about it, but I think WP:IINFO starts to apply here. Any relevant information about this toolbar should be placed in the Microsoft Office article, or the article about a specific version of Office (since this toolbar has not been present in the last three releases of Microsoft Office) - however the fact that nothing has been said about this toolbar for 7 years is not encouraging. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This approaches WP:NOTMANUAL in the level of detail it goes into on one ultimately inconsequential feature of a program. I don't think the toolbar itself warrants a separate article, and articles like revision control already mention that word processors and office suites have revision control built in (albeit briefly, so perhaps that could be expanded). — daranz [ t ] 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.