Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 1.0

Windows CE 1.0

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short, unsourced, reads like a dictionary entry. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment - this looks like it should have been a request to merge, not delete. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]