Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multitasking (iOS) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multitasking_(iOS)

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. There is no consensus to delete. Merge discussion should take place on the talk page as pointed by KvnG. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multitasking (iOS)

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

Does not warrant a separate article. There is no real difference between the concept of computer multitasking and this specific implementation. Some of the content could be merged back into iOS. Don Cuan (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IOS article is ~51 kB but IOS#Multitasking contains much of the same information. Two articles specifically about IOS multitasking in PC World, two in Macworld, one in the Register and one on gizmodo.com would seem to satisfy WP:GNG. If this is to be kept, the section in IOS could be removed, could it not? If it's merged, IOS needn't grow much. —rybec 03:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multitasking in iOS was a big deal in specialized news media, first for its lack thereof and later for its limited approach. Although that is not reflected in the article's text, it's available at the provided references. The article should be expanded to reflect that view, but as it is now it complies with WP:GNG. Diego Moya (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep AfD is not for merge discussion. I have put up some merge banners. Please discuss this on the talk page. ~KvnG 05:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iOS. I'm confused why there's a separate article to begin with. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 8 August 2013 (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.