Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 1.0


 * 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   redirect to Windows CE. While there is no strong consensus in this discussion (mainly due to a lack of participation), the consensus at other recent AfD's (like Articles for deletion/Windows CE 4.0 and Articles for deletion/Windows CE 2.0) seems to indicate that the best solution for these articles is to redirect them to the main article. If, in the future, someone puts together a substantive article with significantly more content than already exists at the main article, then this article may be re-created. -Scottywong | confess _ 16:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Windows CE 1.0

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Short, unsourced, reads like a dictionary entry. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I have expanded it, like I did with 2.0 and 4.0! Someone, please close this thing. WinEuro (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Windows CE as it was until 2 days ago when it was stubify and my revert was reverted. If someone can truely expand this to have some real content, then great. However as it stand, it have even less information than at Windows CE#Versions. KTC (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Benefit of the doubt given current improvements, neutral for now. KTC (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - this looks like it should have been a request to merge, not delete. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  08:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of nomination, there was nothing to merge. Arguably, there's still nothing to merge. KTC (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the right course of action here should be a merge, rather than a deletion - could this be merged with the article Microsoft Windows, which might help people to find their way around Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, someone else has expanded it further. WinEuro (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm working on improving the Windows CE articles (1.0, 2.0, and 4.0). It's going to take some time, but I definitely think the content is there, especially for the 2.0 and 4.0.  Also, remember that being too short is not a valid reason for deletion.  For those that wish for this article to be deleted, it's important that you provide valid reasons for such an action. Millermk (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind the status of the article when it was nominated for deletion, which had less information than was present in the redirect target of Windows CE. Merely being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale, but a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". KTC (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be nice if someone closes the discussion. Just because an article is short, DOESN'T mean it should be deleted, Nouniquenames. WinEuro (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Angry face
 * Please don't take the nomination personally. I did not nominate the article just because it was short, but also (primarily) because it was unsourced and read like a dictionary definition. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When you see a nomination of an article, think of it as not being suitable for Wikipedia now or suitable yet. While obvious vandalism won't stay, other borderline stuff (most of which gets the biggest audience at AfD) might deserved to be created some years down the line. The article is looking better, though I still feel a merge is more appropriate. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  15:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete: the information provided is very few. There are only five lines of text of which the most informative is a simple enumeration of hardware manufacturers. Therefore, I find it hard to see the value of making it an article of its own. The aforesaid enumeration could be integrated into the main article but I fail to see why. VictorVautier (talk) 09:57, 15 July 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.