Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Neptune (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No argument for deletion has been advanced- merger discussion can continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Windows Neptune
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is about a codename of a home version of Windows 2000 that was never finished by Microsoft. At the very least, the content in this article can be merged with Windows 2000 or into Development of Windows XP. SixthAtom (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Aside from the fact that no rationale has been offered to explain this nomination, this process is not for proposed mergers. In any case nothing has changed since the last AfD – was considered notable then, still is now (WP:NTEMP). Without reiterating everything that was said last time round, coverage (significant, much of it and lots of reliable sources) more than satisfies notability requirements. wjemather bigissue 00:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does there exist a process for merging? If so, then I will gladly close this nomination and resubmit it to that process. SixthAtom (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. Please refer to WP:MERGE and Help:Merging. Essentially, you'll need to start a discussion section on the article talk page, use the &  templates on the source and proposed target, and then notify interested paties/projects of the discussion. wjemather bigissue  01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I will let this AfD discussion run it's course before considering to move it to that process. Thanks for showing me that. SixthAtom (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might want to think of a rationale for deletion. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here. wjemather bigissue 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would handily support a merger to Development of Windows XP. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Comment regarding proposed merger. From WP:MERGE. Reasons not to merge, "3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short." As already well established, Neptune was an entirely different project to Whistler/XP, even though many of the ideas were carried into that new project, so the development of XP article is clearly not appropriate as a merge target. Neptune is mentioned as much as it should be in that article already, anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Windows 2000 is also an inappropriate target since it is entirely a business oriented O/S, whereas Neptune was being developed as a consumer O/S, based on Win2K yes, but an entirely discrete project. There is no appropriate merge target that I am aware of, so for me the very idea of merger is a non-starter. wjemather bigissue 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neptune was not a discrete project, it was a stepping stone and a merge is entirely appropriate. Neptune, for what it was in the time frame, was destined to become Whistler/XP even if Whistler/XP didn't yet exist. There are always groups doing experimental/far future/hypothetical work at Microsoft and as the project they work on gets closer to reality, the experimental stuff gets pulled in or discarded. This may not be apparent from reading the Wikipedia article, but the amount of "exposure" Neptune gets here on Wikipedia is quite a bit of WP:UNDUE compared to what it actually was (which is forgivable because our favored sourcing is the mainstream press). You're welcome to email me privately if you're more interested in the background here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Quite simply, WP:V. I'm aware of your claims and couldn't care less whether you worked for MS at the time or not. There are zero reliable sources that are able to verify anything you have said, and that is all that matters. Until you can provide such backing, we can only take what you say with a pinch of salt and dismiss it. Sorry. wjemather bigissue 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural close this is a merge request. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Quite obviously a merger request. No rationale has been offered for deletion. Should be closed ASAP. wjemather bigissue 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2011 (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.