Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 2.0

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 Windows CE#Versions. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows CE 2.0

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

Short, unsourced, reads like a dictionary entry. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:27, 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)[reply]

I have expanded it. WinEuro (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:12, 26 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) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't someone close this discussion? WinEuro, 27 June 2012, 6:08 PM NZT —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's your justification for creating separate articles for each CE version? Subsections in Windows CE#Versions seems like a better approach. --Kvng (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple books on this particular version.[1][2] Individual versions of Windows desktop and different linux distros can get their own page, and other OSs often get a separate version history page that can provide more detail than just a few lines on the main OS page (e.g. iOS version history). On a practical level, it's much better to have a separate article on each version rather than one big article that says "version 4 adds blah, version 3 adds blah, version 2 adds blah" so you have to check back and forth through the history to find what's actually in an individual version. You could merge to a single Windows CE history page, but I think the most useful would be to have separate pages on each version. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions. Unsourced (WP:V) and almost devoid of information. There is no point in spinning so little information out into a separate article before there is enough material to warrant one, per WP:SS. Sandstein 06:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the information provided is very few. There are only two (net) lines of text and no references at all. Therefore, I find it hard to see the value of making it an article of its own. Moreover, the info provided is redundant to the main article. VictorVautier (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2012 (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.