Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Longhorn


 * 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 Development of Windows Vista. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Longhorn

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

Lacks unique content, already duplicated in Microsoft codenames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs)


 * Delete no new content, no sources --Darth NormaN (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No sources? Try looking again, and you will see a lot of references and sources. AimalCool (talk)


 * Delete and redirect to Microsoft codenames. There are no sources here and it's not really that notable if it never actually happened. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No sources? Try looking again, and you will see a lot of references and sources. AimalCool (talk)


 * Delete per "why is this even here?" :) Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Development of Windows Vista. Longhorn wasn't abandoned, it was the codename for what was announced as Vista in 2005. I think the article is wrong; Longhorn/Vista was always going to be the interim between XP and Blackcomb (Windows 7), but as Blackcomb was delayed more of its features went into Longhorn/Vista. Fences and windows (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although see Fences and windows (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you see the history, it was redirected to Development of Windows Vista, then Windows NT 6.0, until AimalCool recreated it yesterday. AimalCool has been making a number of problem edits, just as creating unnecessary redirects, non-free images uploads, crystal ball pages, non-notable pages. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect To Microsoft codenames, but give the AfD process time to work. Treedel (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why to the codenames? Longhorn was the project that turned into Vista, so Development of Windows Vista would be a more obvious target for anyone wanting to learn about it. Fences and windows (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Longhorn" is the codename, so I suggested it go to the codename. It would be the same to me if it was redirected to the development page. Treedel (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Development of Windows Vista. As Longhorn was the codename for Vista, the development of Longhorn is really the development of Vista.  A redirect to a list of codenames isn't as appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Development of Windows Vista. It seems like the page does not need to be expanded, and redirection would be the best solution at this moment. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't delete Why should it be deleted? The article isn't bad in my opinion. It tells you information about Longhorn; it has a lot of references and sources. Also, it says how similar it is with XP and Vista.

I don't think this article should be deleted or redirected. It should be like this. Slowly, more information and references will be added by dome people or me.

AimalCool (talk)


 * Comment. AimalCool removed a comment of mine when adding their own comments. I reverted. I am now restoring my comment and their other comments. Fences and windows (talk) 23:32, 28 May 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.