Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP32


 * 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   delete. JForget 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

EP32

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. See also Articles for deletion/EP128Emu. Psychonaut (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway I know about a book that was published in Hungary (apparently not about EP32) but the google books doesn't find it. Deleting articles according google books is not a thorogh method. --Szipucsu (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What about putting the material about EP32 to the Enterprise computer article? Or do you want to delete that article, too? Anyway I think Wiki's concept about deletion is not really objective. Who would publish anything about a less known 80's computer, rather about its emulator? Are the more known computers better, the less known ones worst? And therefore its emulator is less notable? It is not objective. It is normal that google news and google books gives many results about important things of everyday life and about a very specific area doesn't. It doesn't qualify the specific area itself. Enterprise computer and its emulator IS the part of the computer history as well as Commodore and Spectrum. It is true that this area is mostly undocumented but it doesn't establish its notability. If every notable thing were documented, development of science would hardly stop. :D (And what makes me sad is that people who don't know it decide about which articles to delete and Wiki supports them without asking the opinion of an expert.) --Szipucsu (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Thank you for paying attention to this! If a consensus should be reached, EP128emu article should also be restored for the same reason mentioned above. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, epically non-notable and lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 00:32, 10 February 2010 (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.