Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Neptune


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows Neptune

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable "code name" for Windows XP before its release. Was merged to Development of Windows XP by User:SchmuckyTheCat due to lack of notability and lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Various IP editors and SPA have continued to restore, along with User:Wjemather who called for additional discussion. I found only a single news result for this codename, a Japanese site that, if RS, confirms that it was just a codename for the pre-release XP build. However, as the term does not appear to have significant coverage or use outside of Wikipedia, I feel deletion is likely the better result at it seems like an unlikely search term. If it is felt to be one, I'd suggest deleting and recreating as a locked redirect due to the long history of IP reverting on the term. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the news link above shows more than a "single result", and there appears to be enough material out there to source a separate article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One is about a King Neptune festival or something in Michigan, one is about some windows, then we have some blog posts, and maybe two more news articles that did not show up in a normal search that only confirm that it was an early code name but do not go into significant details about it specifically. A one line mention is not coverage. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ars Technica doesn't count as "some blog posts" or a one-line mention. Please don't exaggerate to make your point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not exaggerate to make a point, I summarized what I saw. Ars is a single source. That is not enough to make an article or show any notability, nor have you addressed why this should be a standalone article when it was, at best, a codename for Windows XP? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only mention in that article is this:

An alpha of "Windows Neptune" (a home-oriented update to Windows 2000) was made in December 1999, with a later beta release in April 2000. Neptune was then combined with "Windows Odyssey" (a minor update to Windows 2000 for business users) to create Windows Whistler—the codename that XP used during its development. The first Whistler beta shipped...
 * Obviously not enough to write an entire article from. Pcap ping  22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ARS TECHNICA COPIED INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA Which completely invalidates the idea that this is notable, and it is why having bogus information and original research in our articles should be dealt with harshly. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

*Delete history and redirect. Like I explained in the sister Articles_for_deletion/Windows_Odyssey_(2nd_nomination), there is only one semi-reliable source that directly supports this article. The DOJ material, part of which is too vaguely cited to verify, is used for WP:Bombardment purposes: it doesn't really support the core of the article. Pcap ping  19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (changed my mind see below)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —wjemather bigissue  19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sarek makes a good point. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Pcap ping  22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It would appear from some basic searching that the Neptune O/S has received a significant amount of coverage (and not just one article). As the first planned home/consumer version of NT based Windows, it was clearly a notable project.wjemather bigissue 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example of significant coverage? Pcap ping  23:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article rewritten, with many fresh sources added. False information, speculation and OR removed. wjemather bigissue 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. To correct the nom, Neptune was not a codename for XP, but a distinct O/S. Whistler, the codename for XP, began development after MS merged their Neptune and Odyssey teams. wjemather bigissue 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ars Technica article noted above states it was a codename for an update to Windows 2000, rather than XP. Can you point to some sources stating it was a separate OS? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Could one of the folks claiming "significant coverage" point me at a reliably-sourced statement in Windows Neptune that's not already in Development of Windows XP? I'm honestly not seeing one, nor sources to write such a statement from. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I agree with Sarek of Vulcan... Ars Technica is not a blog and is significant coverage of the idea and concept. It is unreasonable to assert that notability is temporary for scientific concepts or developments. It is also unreasonable to depend on lack G-Hits as an indicator of non-notability. The notability of ideas is not judged by the same criteria as notability for an athelete or political figure.  Further research in archives and technical journals not available online would be prudent. Surmountable issues are not proper cause for deletion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage == two sentences (quoted above)? Pcap ping  00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, and while WP:GNG is fine for many subject, The notability of ideas is not judged by the same criteria as an event or film. Research in non-online sources would be prudent.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, quoting Ars Technica as an RS here is circular, because the article referred to copied information from Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep this is the sort of subject where the criteria for what counts as RS will often be somewhat loser than the ordinary. The GNG is a guideline, used by default when it seems applicable. it will not and does not apply to all subjects. For software, both commercial and open source, a host of recent AfDs have clearly been shown it not to be sufficiently responsive to the subject, but how to replace it I must leave to the experts, if they can actually agree. In the meantime, common sense will need to do.     DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are advocating original research be used in a class of articles, that is bollocks and against every policy and goal of this project. Further, the original research here is mostly speculation from a bunch of forum users who trade pirated beta software on P2P networks. The information is completely unreliable, and now this unreliable original research has been quoted in the press. Now that press mention our OR, it is being used to argue for sourcing HERE on Wikipedia where it originally appeared. This is possibly the worst argument to keep information I have ever seen, because that circular sourcing problem is the worst possible scenario ever for Wikipedia being trusted as a reliable reference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep – Per DGG; Every Microsoft project code name is an inherently notable article name; in some cases these need to be a re-direct to the released project; in this case it does not.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a CD on my desk here, on official Microsoft silk-screened media, that is a build of Windows and the code name is my real name. Does that make me notable? This idea that any MS code name is insta-deserving of an article is completely ignorant of how Microsoft works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep. Article seems important and not a the code name for XP (as Longhorn is for Visa).  --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete history, then redirect to Development of Windows XP All the reliably sourced information we have about this software fits in that article just fine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * While Neptune formed the basis for the development of Whistler, later XP, it was a distinct project so that redirect would be inappropriate. In any case, this clearly passes WP:GNG. wjemather bigissue 11:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neptune didn't form the basis of Whistler/XP. It was a pre-Win2000 side project and killed before Win2000 even RTM'd.  Explaining this has as much to do with fired executives, duplicated corporate divisions both working on similar things, and other corporate politics. Microsoft kills off more codenamed development projects than they ever try to ship.  Wikipedia has a hard-on for this project because some software pirates got a leaked build and tried to write a Wikipedia article about it.  All of these press references are trivial mentions, because this side project never got anywhere, attention to it is almost purely a Wikipedia phenomenon. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * If you agree that "Neptune didn't form the basis of Whistler/XP", why would you want a "redirect to Development of Windows XP", which you have edit-warred about in the past. Aside from that, the sources would seem to disagree with you. They clearly state that it was a consumer version of Win2000, and that a build was released, not leaked, by MS to development testers. Also, this is quite obviously not a trivial mention. wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't form the basis, but was a fork in the road to get there. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Comment The statement that Microsoft Neptune development was cancelled prior to the Microsoft Windows 2000 RTM being compiled is not completely accurate. Microsoft Windows 2000 RTM (Build 2195) was compiled on December 15, 1999. That's 12 days prior to Microsoft Neptune Build 5111 being compiled. And potentially, there may have been some post-Build 5111 development, which means there may have been some builds after the general availability of Microsoft Windows 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.7.240 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion of notability, and there was no released product! If we were considering a new article saying that according to some magazine, Windows Triton will be released in 2011 as the next [insert marketing jargon here], we would have no trouble in quoting WP:CRYSTAL and saying that we will create the article when the product is officially announced. In the case of Neptune, we are creating such an article after the event. It ain't a product; it never was and never will be. It was just one of a thousand steps in the ongoing development of Windows. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first line of WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Whether the project was eventually cancelled is immaterial. The fact is, Neptune received more than enough significant coverage. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this topic has received insignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore it is presumed to fail to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Fleet Command (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Several articles on ZDNet over a six month plus period from mid-1999 is a pretty solid indicator that other reputable industry publications, and possibly general media, also devoted significant column inches to it. Especially given their articles refer to other publications, such as PC Week. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue  17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:INTHENEWS: You are right, but all those are over now. Neptune's coverage was a temporary short burst in the news and, per WP:NTEMP, it does not merit an independent article of its own. However, it doesmerit a dependent article. Half of the sources in Neptune article quote about how Neptune was merged into Whistler. Neptune draws all its notability from Windows XP. So, a merger would immediately resolve the notability issue. Why delete, when we can merge? Fleet Command (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop emboldening random phrases. They do give your POV any extra weight. Nor does quoting irrelevant essay sections. Over six months of coverage is hardly a short burst and plainly, there are offline publications that discussed Neptune more in depth, unveiling new features, etc. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue  19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Development of Windows XP: The article suffers from lack of notability per WP:NTEMP: "“It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability.”"  However, the issue of notability can be resolved by merging the article into Development of Windows XP. Fleet Command (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 5111 build has received some commentary on its features, and this should be included in the article. I has just enough meat for a short, separate article. Pcap  ping  16:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This was not one insignificant step out of one thousand in the development of Microsoft Windows XP. Furthermore, the very fact that it was never released does not prove that it's not notable. If Windows Neptune and Windows Odyssey have to be deleted simply because they weren't released, then using that logic, Cairo (operating system) and Windows Nashville would have to be removed as well. Since you're claiming that due to the fact that it wasn't released it's not notable, then perhaps you should explain why Cairo (operating system) and Windows Nashville haven't been nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.142.13 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: reliable sources exist (see above) including screenshots which PROVE it is real here http://neosmart.net/gallery/v/os/Neptune/ Also this isn't just screenshots, it has a short description of windows neptune at the top and that it became windows xp. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) ** — 174.112.211.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Are you aware of the fact that just because it exists, does not mean it's notable? WP:EXISTENCE.76.238.131.1 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Windows Neptune is notable. I personally don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, it is verifiable. And in regards to an earlier comment by User:SchmuckyTheCat that due to the fact that it was never released and never will be, there's no potential for new information, there obviously is potential for new information. Maybe some additional builds will be leaked or maybe some new information will be discovered. WP:DEMOLISH. This article doesn't appear to meet any deletion criteria and neither does Windows Odyssey. I do however believe that Windows Neptune should be renamed to Microsoft Neptune due to the fact that it's an internal code name. Same applies to Windows Odyssey...it should be renamed to Microsoft Odyssey since it's an internal codename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.240.135 (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)  — 76.222.240.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — User: (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge per arguments by nominator, Fleetcommand and all those in between. This is yet another AfD being disrupted by socks and outside canvassing. Shame, and I hope the closing nominator dismisses such commentary without consideration. If the nominator states previous agreements to merge or redirect were thwarted, the redirect should be permanently protected and the merge target closely watched. Miami33139 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, there was no agreement or consensus to merge. It was originally performed following no response to a merge template that had no associated discussion, which of course is fine. This article, and the one on Odyssey, have been hit hard by continuous additions of false information and original research by an array of rogue contributors, but it has now been cleaned up and is properly referenced. I feel that we are here not because of the notability of the subject but because of the disruption caused by these editors, who are possibly not helping to keep the article with their input here either. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 22:41, 12 January 2010 (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.