Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows)


 * 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   keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

FreeCell (Windows)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Merge with FreeCell. This is just one of many, many implementations of the game. It really doesn't have substantial coverage or notability outside of FreeCell. See also Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows).  S ven M anguard  Wha?  00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to FreeCell. There is nothing special about an implementation on Windows. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of implementation-specific detail in there that could not be merged. Mcewan (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm forced to concur with Mcewan, there's a good bit of information (and sourcing) specific to this version that likely would not survive a merge. The aspect that involves the internet freecell project is unique to this version as well, and that got its own coverage. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge FreeCell and FreeCell (Windows) have a lot of very similar information. If there were multiple notable implementations, it might make sense to separate them out, but in view of the common material and the difficulty of separating it, I think it makes sense to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for the same reason as I stated in my vote to keep Hearts (Windows). This article is not about how to play the game, it's also about the history, development of the software component.  It's part of a series of software components found in MS operating systems, which happen to include games. It's a weak keep b/c the nom didn't bring this here to be deleted, rather to be merged, which does have SOME merit.  It would be a stronger argument for the merge to go the other way, given that MS FreeCell is really the only notable version. Roodog2k (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep —Ruud 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or procedural closure There is no argument for deletion, anything else is a matter for the talk page of the article as there is enough work already at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and maintain information in a distinct section for the FreeCell article. Someone should replace the deletion tag with a proposed merge tag, as there are no arguments for deletion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, it too long if you merged over all content. A notable bit of software on its own.   D r e a m Focus  00:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable in its own respect as one of the iconic Windows games, Mcewan and Ultra also make good points. Also a trout for the nominator who failed to advance a deletion rationaile, making this a WP:SK1 candidate. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.