Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Computer Controls, Inc.


 * 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 redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc.. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Digital Computer Controls, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was tagged for 3 months regarding notability without improvement. Was sent to draft and immediately returned without improvement. Not enough in-depth sourcing from independent sources to meet notability, WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * without improvement? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * this is actually the difference when it was moved out of draft without improvement. Onel 5969  TT me 21:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My diff was for when the article was improved after being tagged for notability, which you claimed was not done. The article was removed from draft space simply because there was no valid reason to move it there in the first place, so no improvement was needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Never claimed that. My quote was "Was sent to draft and immediately returned without improvement", it did not read Was sent to draft and immediately returned, and has not been improved.  And it met the criteria for draftification, sorry.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the first sentence of your nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I started this page as I felt the company was relevant given the landmark legal case Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc., I exhaustively researched their old computer systems and specs as that is primarily the information I can find on the company. They were one of the first clone computer manufacturers, if not the first, so I found them notable. I added references to some of the computer specs in the table after someone removed the table due to lack of references. I would certainly appreciate keeping this page after the amount of time I spent researching. ShadyCrack (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. since notability is not inherited and since coverage seems to otherwise be very sparse (the only thing that I can find are database entries) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The coverage in ISBN 0877692351 which was cited in the article 27 times in the period when the nominator claims that it was not improved, is not sparse at all, and it is from a reliable publisher, an imprint of a division of Taylor & Francis. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is cited 27 times, to support a table about the company's products (which I've now removed, because WP:NOTDIRECTORY). One cite would be enough, and I'm not quite sure why a product listing is an acceptable source for showing GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But the source is not just a product listing. It contains several pages of prose about this company. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why was the source only being used for a product listing? I seem to be having trouble accessing it, but if there's something here to substantiate notability, surely you should be able to add the relevant information to the article so that WP:HEY can be invoked. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't run an edit-on-demand service, and can't answer questions about the editing of someone I don't know. In what way are you having trouble accessing the source? The PDF (accessible from the article before you removed the best source from it) downloads perfectly well for me (with Firefox on Linux). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. On further inspection, I'm not sure that is an acceptable source, because it appears to be an unselective listing, coming from a (now subsidiary of someone else) publisher (Auerbach Publishing) specialised in producing technical reports, and thus quite like trivial coverage. Even if it somehow isn't (the focus on sales figures, product listings, ... indicates otherwise), that makes it one acceptable source, and we need multiple. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect agree, redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. as per WP:ATD  HighKing++ 20:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with redirect option. Article itself does not exhibit notability as required by criteria.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  20:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.