- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Windows 4.x (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
"Windows 4.x" is a neologism, and we already have articles that cover lists of Windows versions. No need to make more of them. Warren -talk- 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect. It is not neologism, but not very encyclopedic by itself. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first release of Microsoft Windows with a version number of 4 was released thirteen years ago, but "windows 4.x" produces very few hits that are about Windows itself. Perhaps neologism isn't the perfect word for it, but we shouldn't be promoting the idea that it is an actual term in common use. Warren -talk- 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Some software vendors use the term Windows 4.x instead of listing out Windows 95/95/ME/NT for instance. With 15,000 hits on google, it's a name/search term common enough to warrant keeping this as a disambiguation page. Ben (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Windows NT had some coincident 4.x releases as well, therefore Windows 9x refers to the consumer half the 4.x lineup.
- Keep it's a dab page, and the dab page is accurate. With so many entries, redirecting it to a particular article would make a very very large hatnote for no good reason. 70.51.8.56 (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Windows 9x. While I think "Windows 4.x" is a more elegant way of referring to the "Windows 9x/Me", series, this article is a bit lacking in content, and is inaccurate - Me does have a later version number than 98 in the MS version number convention, and NT 4.0 is fundamentaly a quite different beast from Windows 4.x and should not be grouped with it. Letdorf (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Redirecting to windows 9x doesn't seem right, because not all 4.x versions were marketed as "9x". BTW, it's not a neologism, but the proper version number that can be seen, for example, by typing the "ver" command. --Itub (talk) 11:16, 18 July 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.