275:; we have hundreds of articles on components of present and past versions of Microsoft Windows -- it's a vast and complex topic that requires that much coverage. A merge wouldn't be suitable; where would we merge it to? The article as I read it now demonstrates good attention being paid to sourcing and demonstration of notability. The nominator said that there's no assertion that this component was included with Windows --
217:
missing, but sources have been provided from which it can be built. Again, cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion, and CSD certainly doesn't seem warranted w/o the presence of a copyvio. The notability issue has less of an impact on the article from a reader's perspective (ie, not a policy
129:
Prod was contested through two separate comments on my talk page, both by the same person. Software with no assertion of notability. No indication about whether it came with
Windows itself, with another package, who makes the software, etc. Unless such information can be provided,
218:
perspective) than the poor syntax and howto-like structure. The context issue is significant, but dramatically overstated by the nom - There's more than enough information already in the article to form a well-written stub LEAD. A major cleanup effort will be required if retained.
206:
Answer to nom - That an article requires cleanup is not grounds for deletion. The bulk of the missing information you describe is now present in the first sentence, "Make
Compatible is a program that is bundled with Microsoft Windows
48:
due to edits that took care of the concerns expressed in the nomination. This article is still in need of a major cleanup, but it does now say what it is talking about. Non-admin closing. --
210:
Answer to Jules: Like many other transitional tools, this topic has merit as an illustration of the evolution of the level of backwards compatibility seen in these versions of
Windows.
253:
From? This isn't a merge suggestion, it's an AfD discussion. Got a proposal worth making that you're sitting on? A viable merge candidate would be interesting, if there is one.
122:
180:
which is part of
Windows. I don't think we need an article about every program that ships with windows and this one is particularly unimportant in my view.
89:
84:
157:. No assertion of notability, no context. Under most scenarios of what this might be, inclusion (if any) should be in another article.
93:
243:
163:
76:
17:
305:
36:
304:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
290:
261:
248:
229:
189:
168:
148:
58:
177:
238:
158:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
286:
185:
72:
64:
213:
To general complaints about notability and lack of context: The assertion of notability
135:
254:
222:
110:
282:
181:
276:
237:
No suggestion in your reply for why this should be covered separately.
298:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
198:
117:
106:
102:
98:
176:. For reference, it appears to be talking about
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
308:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
277:here's Microsoft saying it did
1:
291:18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
262:16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
249:12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
230:11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
190:08:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
169:02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
149:01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
59:00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
134:possibly (but unlikely) an
325:
301:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
199:to intervening edits
44:The result was
146:
56:
316:
303:
285:
259:
246:
241:
227:
166:
161:
145:
143:
120:
114:
96:
55:
53:
46:Withdrawn by nom
34:
324:
323:
319:
318:
317:
315:
314:
313:
312:
306:deletion review
299:
281:
255:
244:
239:
223:
164:
159:
139:
116:
87:
73:Make Compatible
71:
68:
65:Make Compatible
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
322:
320:
311:
310:
294:
293:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
220:
219:
211:
208:
203:
202:
197:, largely due
192:
171:
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
321:
309:
307:
302:
296:
295:
292:
289:
288:
284:
278:
274:
271:
270:
263:
260:
258:
252:
251:
250:
247:
242:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
226:
216:
212:
209:
205:
204:
200:
196:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
170:
167:
162:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
142:
137:
133:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
300:
297:
280:
272:
256:
224:
221:
214:
194:
178:this command
173:
154:
140:
131:
128:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
141:Blanchardb
51:Blanchardb
136:A1 speedy
147:- timed
123:View log
57:- timed
257:MrZaius
225:MrZaius
132:delete,
90:protect
85:history
287:-talk-
283:Warren
182:JulesH
174:Delete
155:Delete
118:delete
94:delete
245:matic
240:Bongo
165:matic
160:Bongo
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
273:Keep
207:98."
195:Keep
186:talk
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
279:.
215:is
188:)
138:.
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
201::
184:(
144:-
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
54:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.