Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows To Go

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. (non-admin closure) -- Lear's Fool 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows To Go

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

I don't think this individual feature deserves its own article. So either have this deleted (it's mentioned in other Windows 8 articles already) or merged. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the subject's notability is clearly established, by multiple, reliable, high-quality sources, even with entire articles dedicated to it (Ars Technica ZDNet Computerworld Softpedia and many others). Regarding being just a "feature", this feature has received very high acclaim from the media, and also extensive coverage. I also think "being mentioned in other articles" does not in any way conflict with the existence of an article, in fact, being mentioned in other articles only shows this is a relevant topic. --SF007 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but we didn't write an article on Windows 8's picture passwords either (even though that clearly was notable).Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, there might be one later. WP:NOTFINISH. mabdul 11:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but there are countless articles on individual Windows features. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh and I miss: please also delete then privacy mode, access key, Ribbon (computing) and other articles (likely all of {{GUI widgets}}. mabdul 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep feature supported by reliable references. Sufficiently different to warrant a short article. The picture passwords also deserve an article so the absence of articles proves nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Keep per my comment above. mabdul 11:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though I would prefer this being merged to Live USB, it will definitely have its article, as it has already enough specific coverage. Thus I wouldn't break the natural order of events for WP:SNOW reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pizza1016 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TheGeekHead (talk) 04:34, 22 January 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.