Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReFS


 * 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   merge to Windows Server 8. There is clear consensus the a separate article isn't warranted and per WP:ATD merging is the better option. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ReFS

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Based entirely on published rumors with scant details. References aren't even agreed on the name. Might be notable once sufficient information is available to produce a reasonable article but today it's WP:CRYSTAL BALL gazing. Contested prod with no improvement since then. RadioFan (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete. Not enough sources. Drjames1 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL based purely on rumors.  Notability requires reliable sources.  This isn't even close.  If this filesystem does get released, it's the sort of thing that will instantly get covered (thanks to Microsoft's helpful PR folks) by lots of reliable sources.  When that happens, we can (and I'm sure, will) have the article.  But this is WP:TOOSOON.  Msnicki (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Windows Server 8. I think this is worth one sentence as "Pre-beta builds included a new version of NTFS" or something.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Windows Server 8. The Mary-Jo Foley article would probably pass as a reliable source. No need to have separate articles on all new features (yet). —Ruud 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Windows 8 or Features new to Windows 8. We've seen it in Windows 8, not Server, and the Server-only rumor is unverifiable. As for the name, Protogon is reliable because we've actually seen it in builds. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, we have no knowledge of either Windows 8 or Windows 8 Server having it. Protogon? I never saw Protogon in any screenshots besides really really early ones, only that it was mentioned in the text besides them. I would still merge it to Windows Server 8 because that's where it is important, but I would support merging to both Windows 8 and Windows Server 8 if I'm convinced that "server-only" is not verifiable.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the new name is also backed up by screenshots. Our source for it being server-only is WinRumors. We normally reject information from rumor sites. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:37, 4 January 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.