Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Computers (3rd nomination)


 * 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 move to Happy drives with redirect. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy Computers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. First AfD 10 years ago closed as keep because geek editors who commented were fan of Atari, through one noted that sources are about the products, not company, but the consensus was that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Second AfD closed as no consensus since no-one except the nominator, User:Alpha Quadrant, voted. Since nobody can find sources for notability for the company, and few articles mentioning it name in passsing and reviewing its products don't establish it, here we go again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Products reviewed in various Atari magazines, some of these reviews are even referenced in the article. It is obvious there are enough reliable sources to make stand-alone articles for each product, but it is more convenient for our readers to keep them all under one company article. Pavlor (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Reviews about their products may make those products notable, but notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keep enough reception in paper magazines Shaddim (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The Happy Drive was well-known and received significant coverage at the time of release. Dgpop (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Nobody who has !voted keep has provided any evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for the company - not the products, the company. I'd say that people are getting themselves confused. 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we make new articles for each of their products? From my point of view a useless waste of community time... Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if the products are notable then there's no reason why articles about them shouldn't be made. This article isn't about the products, and people who are !voting keep based on the notability of the products rather than the company are out of step with Wikipedia's policies and the community consensus on inherited notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? Small history section about the company, all other text about its products... Pavlor (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is exactly my point - this article is meant to be about the company, so why is there so little information about the company? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is meant to be about products of this company, which is obvious to both of us. There are no articles about Happy Computers products, except this one. Even if you admit that products are notable, your only solution is to delete the sole article about them... If you create articles for every product listed on the Happy Computers page, I will applaud your work and even provide some help (references to reviews in various magazines), then you get my delete (not)vote for this company article. Or we can simply leave all these products under one company label. Pavlor (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you almost made me do an actual facepalm. The article isn't a list of Happy Computers products. It's called "Happy Computers" and it's about the company. Do I have to keep putting the word "company" in bold to emphasise this? It's perfectly possible, for example, to have articles about notable books without having articles about their authors. You don't simply bundle the notable books into an article about the non-notable author out of convenience. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Generally, having a notable book makes an author notable, but this is because WP:CREATIVE can be read like that. For products, this is not usually true, per WP:INHERITED. Now, if any of those sources even as so much call it an important company for the history of computing etc., that would be good. That some of their products got reviewed is not sufficient - they fail at WP:NCOMPANY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is, we don´t have articles about these products... Although you think otherwise, reader convenience is important factor for an encyclopedia. It is more probable our readers will search for informations about Happy Computers drive modifications under "Happy Computers" name, not product names as these vary in the press of the day (and even in the company adverts). WP:COMMONNAME commes in mind. Pavlor (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further comments should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment "Happy Computers" (or "Happy Computing") figures in few articles/books about software piracy - eg. prominently in this article in New Scientist (12 May 1983): Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a textbook example of "passing mention." How low do you think the bar is? "Significant coverage" means more than a single mention. Read WP:SIGCOV sometime. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Read again name of that article, "Happy...", got it? I give up. Simply move the page to better passing title (eg. Happy drives - which is term used in some sources), leave redirect and be happy there is no more article about company with dubious notability... As 90 % of content is about "Happy drives", this should be a simple matter. Pavlor (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move with redirect to Happy drives. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2017 (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.