Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MSX compatible computers


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of MSX compatible computers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced list of commercial products built around antiquated standard. Ends up being a catalog of old products. The large majority of items on this list don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: "antiquated" doesn't factor into the equation, as notability is not temporary, and the MSX standard is certainly notable. A list where most of the items fail notability criteria (and as such don't have articles) is okay per WP:CSC. LjL (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lists where entries fail the notability criteria "are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic." Here, the items given aren't verifiably mebers of the proposed group because there are no references. And because their notability was temporary, such references generally aren't available. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Their notability couldn't have been temporary, because notability is not temporary. I feel I am repeating myself here... As to references, we have things like Google Books, the Internet Archive, and potentially, editors still owning relevant magazines or whatever. WP:OFFLINE sources are perfectly fine, you know. LjL (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you've presumed that this subject was notable in the first place and this piece doesn't present any evidence that it was. NTEMP says this: "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." MSX-compatibility was interesting in the 80s, but is now completely irrelevant; it might have been notable at one time, but now is completely irrelevant. Standards from the same era that were truly notable still have references readily available because their notability was not temporal. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of what you just said at all. MSX is a well-known standard among those who have any knowledge of home computers at all. It was definitely notable in its time, and as such, it can't stop being. LjL (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forget about notability. This is contested content that fails WP:V for lack of sources, and none have been provided for weeks now. This makes deletion mandatory.  Sandstein   17:48, 22 November 2015 (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.