Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Compatible


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nom due to edits that took care of the concerns expressed in the nomination. This article is still in need of a major cleanup, but it does now say what it is talking about. Non-admin closing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Make Compatible

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod was contested through two separate comments on my talk page, both by the same person. Software with no assertion of notability. No indication about whether it came with Windows itself, with another package, who makes the software, etc. Unless such information can be provided, delete, possibly (but unlikely) an A1 speedy.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) MrZaius talk  11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability, no context. Under most scenarios of what this might be, inclusion (if any) should be in another article. Bongo  matic  02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. For reference, it appears to be talking about this command which is part of Windows.  I don't think we need an article about every program that ships with windows and this one is particularly unimportant in my view. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, largely due to intervening edits:
 * 1) Answer to nom - That an article requires cleanup is not grounds for deletion. The bulk of the missing information you describe is now present in the first sentence, "Make Compatible is a program that is bundled with Microsoft Windows 98."
 * 2) Answer to Jules: Like many other transitional tools, this topic has merit as an illustration of the evolution of the level of backwards compatibility seen in these versions of Windows.
 * 3) To general complaints about notability and lack of context: The assertion of notability is missing, but sources have been provided from which it can be built. Again, cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion, and CSD certainly doesn't seem warranted w/o the presence of a copyvio. The notability issue has less of an impact on the article from a reader's perspective (ie, not a policy perspective) than the poor syntax and howto-like structure. The context issue is significant, but dramatically overstated by the nom - There's more than enough information already in the article to form a well-written stub LEAD. A major cleanup effort will be required if retained.
 * No suggestion in your reply for why this should be covered separately. Bongo  matic  12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From? This isn't a merge suggestion, it's an AfD discussion. Got a proposal worth making that you're sitting on? A viable merge candidate would be interesting, if there is one. MrZaius  talk  16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; we have hundreds of articles on components of present and past versions of Microsoft Windows -- it's a vast and complex topic that requires that much coverage. A merge wouldn't be suitable; where would we merge it to?  The article as I read it now demonstrates good attention being paid to sourcing and demonstration of notability.  The nominator said that there's no assertion that this component was included with Windows -- here's Microsoft saying it did.   Warren -talk- 18:26, 10 February 2009 (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.