Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of Windows 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 2 May 2008 (AfD closed. The result was: delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 06:41, 2 May 2008 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (AfD closed. The result was: delete)
- 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 delete. Whatever isn't already in Windows 7 is unverified and should accordingly not be merged. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Development of Windows 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The main Windows 7 article isn't long enough to warrant a split into a sub article. That apart, there is nothing in this article to let it stand by itself. It contains mostly a list of unreffed build numbers and release dates, which fails verifiability and thus does not belong here. Plus whatever text is here is a duplication of the main Windows 7 article. The release history (what is veifiable) is already covered in Windows 7. soum talk 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it should stay because it will have to be put up eventually, why not keep it up and save the trouble, they are verified btw, maybe not by wiki but i know all the builds. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ECx2)Comment: Let that "eventuality" come up, the article can be created then. You do not know that it will need to be created, the development might be silent enough to be included in the main article itself. Just because you took the trouble of digging up the builds doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here. They have to be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources (no forums and blogs do not count such) to be included here. Failing which, they are prime candidates for removal. Please familiarise yourself with the policies here, that will save you a lot of trouble. --soum talk 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ok I understand but still... when you know the windows 7 dev team then you will know that these builds are in fact correct, I make the builds list for all Microsoft Windows OS Platforms. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Doesn't matter. Any source that cannot be verified independently cannot be used as a reference. --soum talk 03:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ok I understand but still... when you know the windows 7 dev team then you will know that these builds are in fact correct, I make the builds list for all Microsoft Windows OS Platforms. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ECx2)Comment: Let that "eventuality" come up, the article can be created then. You do not know that it will need to be created, the development might be silent enough to be included in the main article itself. Just because you took the trouble of digging up the builds doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here. They have to be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources (no forums and blogs do not count such) to be included here. Failing which, they are prime candidates for removal. Please familiarise yourself with the policies here, that will save you a lot of trouble. --soum talk 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the build numbers (the main part of the article) do not cite any sources, plus the article is mostly a fork from Windows 7 Atyndall93 | talk 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: apart from a small amount of material which could be merged into Windows 7, this is just listcruft. -- The Anome (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Merge with Windows 7, and tabulate the data. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that wouldn't make sense, all the other windows os's have their own development page, and even though it may not be big now it will be in the future. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 6:36 PM, 1 May 2008 (EST)
- Comment: Only Windows 98, XP, Vista and now 7 have their own development articles. With the exception of Development of Windows 98, which too needs to be sourced, each of those have lots of sourced information. Development of Windows 7 has no sourced information that isn't also in Windows 7. No one is saying that an article by this name won't need to be created in the future. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ok you just came up with a perfect example, development of windows 98 is absolutely crap it has nothing on it at all and yet its not marked for deletion, development of windows 7 has pleanty more information then that dev page. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 6:36 PM, 1 May 2008 (EST)
- Comment: Only Windows 98, XP, Vista and now 7 have their own development articles. With the exception of Development of Windows 98, which too needs to be sourced, each of those have lots of sourced information. Development of Windows 7 has no sourced information that isn't also in Windows 7. No one is saying that an article by this name won't need to be created in the future. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that wouldn't make sense, all the other windows os's have their own development page, and even though it may not be big now it will be in the future. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 6:36 PM, 1 May 2008 (EST)
- Delete per nom and because the builds that aren't also listed in Windows 7 aren't notable. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Windows 7 as per above [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.