Talk:IBM 3624

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on IBM 3624. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126163900/http://www-5.ibm.com:80/de/entwicklung/history/grafik/1980_1.jpg to http://www-5.ibm.com/de/entwicklung/history/grafik/1980_1.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519010204/http://www-5.ibm.com/de/entwicklung/history/menues/menue_80.html to http://www-5.ibm.com/de/entwicklung/history/menues/menue_80.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for lack of notability
Regarding of my PROD tag, I did state which policy I believe this article to violate: notability. So I'm not sure what you mean by, "...no valid reason for deletion provided." – void  xor  22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to answer for Iridescent, but contradicting your assertion Individual models of automatic teller machine (ATM) are not notable, there do exist notable ATMs, e.g., Tillie the All-Time Teller. So each ATM article needs to be considered individually for notability. --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't just say "notability" and leave it at that, since if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is by definition notable in Wikipedia terms. If you want something deleted, you need to specify why you believe the article is either on a topic which will never be appropriate for coverage, or demonstrate that the article is so poor that it can't be salvaged in its current state. WP:PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions; if you can't or won't demonstrate a reason for deletion, then by definition it's not uncontroversial. "Other examples don't have stand-alone articles" is not a valid argument, if the sources exist to create a stand-alone article; every topic on Wikipedia—other than music, Ancient Greece and logicians, the subjects of the original nine articles at our launch—has at some point had one article which was the first of its class. (As late as 2008, people were arguing that individual paintings didn't warrant their own articles, for instance; we now have thousands of articles on paintings.) &#8209; Iridescent 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points, both of you. Thank you for the clarification. I just wish that Iridescent had originally explained that my notability argument was flawed, rather than asserting that I had failed to name a relevant policy. Might have saved some fuss. Anyway, it's water under the bridge now. Happy new year! – void  xor  23:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)