Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer hardwares


 * 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 no consensus. The key argument that the list is too broad to be useful is a matter of judgment, and there seems no agreement about it. Perhaps the best course would be to organize the list and improve its usefulness.  DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

List of computer hardwares

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a list; the purpose of this page would be best served as categories, or edits to the relevant articles. 06:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:CLN, Wikipedia contains lots of lists and this is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, WP:DOAL explicitly mentions that (quoting) "Some topics […] are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable)". A list of all possible hardware elements one may include in a computer is bound to reach this status at some point. Why would the use of categories, such as Category:Computer storage devices, not be adequate to achieve this, since they are already implemented in the target articles?  07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN lists advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories and there is no clear preference. The key point there is WP:NOTDUPE which says quite explicitly: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew D. (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this topic is too broad, nor do I think it will become unmanageable because this article itself indicates there are a limited number of hardware items. And, it appears this list article is staying true to its topic by listing only hardware items and not going off in other directions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete effectively useless, as evidenced by the pageview graph, per DokReggar this is an unbounded list which is without use to our readers. If someone wants to know what's inside a computer, I suggest the information is hosted in Computer, not a "List of computer hardwares (sic)".  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The list is quite new and it's quite surprising that we don't seem to have anything of this sort already. But the list of computer components and peripherals is quite fundamental and familiar and so easily passes WP:LISTN -- see PC Hardware in a Nutshell for a source covering the common PC type of computer.  It would be easy to improve per our editing policy.  We just need to get this silly deletion discussion out of the way first. Andrew D. (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's far from silly. Please try talking in English rather than in wikilinks in future, people will take you more seriously Colonel.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article would be easy to improve per our editing policy, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Also, I actually take people seriously when they use links to policies and guidelines or name policies and guideline. For me it takes the guesswork out of determining merit or inclusion for an article on Wikipedia.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is what categories are for... and navigation templates; both of which already exist for this "topic". We don't need a third thing to get out of sync with the other three. List articles in general are an unfortunate fact of life on WP, as they add no encyclopedic information other than a list of names or terms. Jeh (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources and additional encyclopedic content, such as a lead section and images, have been added to the article. North America1000 01:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic content" does not mean sources and images. Jeh (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I may expand the article with descriptions if it's retained. I don't want to waste my time doing so at this time only to see the article deleted, though. What came first, the chicken or the egg? North America1000 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it would just be a list of dictionary entries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedic content would describe not just each term but when and who developed the items in question, the relationships of the various types of hardware to each other, the interlocking histories of their development (e.g. the progression of mass storage from magnetic tape through magnetic drums and disks to solid state drives, with the migration of mag tape from "live" mass storage to backup uses; the near-extinction of punched card input and the tremendous reduction in reliance on printed output brought about by display screens and keyboards; etc.). And then it would not have to be called "List of..." anything; it would be an actual article. Of course, that's a lot more work then just typing everything you find in the "Computer hardware" categories into yet another big damn list article. Jeh (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename List of computer hardware (or another name). At first I thought this would be a list of all products ever offered to sale to attach to a computer, but a list of the types of hardware is fine. I doubt this list will ever reach 100 entries as there are not a million computer architectures out there. It meets WP:CSC #1 (list with all elements standalone-notable).
 * The pageviews are irrelevant - I bet Viișoara, Glodeni (thank you, "random article" link) does not get many hits either, but it meets the guidelines so we should keep it. And "duplicate from category" is (see above) explicitly noted as an irrelevant argument.
 * Finally, while I disapprove throwing around wikispeak (and I am guily of doing it occasionally), Andrew D. made his point in plain English. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that page views are irrelevant for determining whether or not an article is acceptable on Wikipedia, whether the article is new or so many years old. Rather, the most important factor is WP:N notability, of which page views is not a part. Hence, as User:Andrew D has mentioned, this appears to pass muster with list article guidelines. And, not meaning to offend - this does matter - because we editors cannot accept, willy nilly, any kind of posted content. Otherwise, our discussions might be about liking or not liking this or that article, which would not be helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete A unsourced & useless article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources and additional content have been added to the article. North America1000 03:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the current contents are not convincing of keeping as anything of an article at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Computer hardware. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. An easily expandable and improvable article. I have performed some additions and copy edits to the article, including the addition of some references, something that cannot be done with categories. I have renamed the article to List of computer hardware. North America1000 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not really see a use for this, since you can find the same content in the computer hardware article. Why not contribute to this article and the ones linked instead?  07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Computer hardware is a article with content, List of computer hardware is an index. Both serve different purposes and it is fine. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete; seemingly random list of indiscriminate information.  Sandstein   18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not now. I just removed the peripherals from the list. The list now only includes hardware. I'm not seeing how the list is indiscriminate as per WP:IINFO at this time. It has a well-defined scope and only has relevant entries now. North America1000 01:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Although I can see grounds for a list if the parts that make a computer system, this list doesn't cut it. For example, it has a "punched card" next to "solid state drive" and "Free and open-source graphics device driver" next to "graphics card (GPU)", "graphics hardware" and "graphics processing unit" which is just random grabs from 50 years of computer history. GPU means Graphics Processing Unit, creating double entries. My impression of this article in total is that it is written in chaos and not fixable other than starting with a clean slate. DeVerm (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A punched card is a type of computer hardware, as verified in the following source: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. p. 277. It's an an alphabetical list, so sure, they're listed next to one-another. I removed the redundant GPU link in the article, which took one second to accomplish. North America1000 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, a Punched card is not computer hardware but just a piece of paper from a time that character recognition by a computer was science fiction and they needed punch holes in specific locations which could then be detected by a punch card reader. This reader is the computer hardware; you can find it in musea. The punch card was equal to a computer print-out now, which is also about to become obsolete. DeVerm (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I have changed the entry in the article to read "Punched card reader" (diff). North America1000 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not help; if editing at all, you should remove it because the card reader is already on the list as the first item. The article linked explicitly includes punch card reader. Creating pages is not a matter of throwing edits at it until it, by chance, is a hit. It requires much more in-depth study of the scope as well as each item listed. I still recommend to start over because the list is hardly improving, if at all. DeVerm (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, I removed punch card reader. That was easy. As I stated above, I wouldn't mind adding descriptions, but if this is to be deleted, that would be a waste of time. Hopefully the article will be retained, so the work I have already performed to improve it can continue. At this point, I guess I'll wait until the AfD discussion is closed before potentially proceeding with any more edits to the article. Of course, the time you spent here discussing the matter is far greater than it would have taken to simply perform the edits you suggested to improve the article. However, you want it deleted, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America1000 16:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article appears to be a definite benefit for the general reader, in particular as a useful index. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates" are not perceived as duplication on Wikipedia. Furthermore, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Hence, saying that we have categories that cover such lists seems to be a weak argument. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "As defined earlier, computer hardware includes all the physical components of a computer system that can be seen and touched, including the keyboard and mouse (input devices), the CPU and memory (processing devices), display monitors and printers (output devices), the hard disk and RAM (storage device), as well as DVDs, CDs, flash memory cards, etc. (storage media). Printer and USB cables, modems, and network interface cards (NIC) are other examples of computer hardware. Some hardware, such as a keyboard or a mouse, can be seen on the outside of a computer. Other hardware, such as RAM, an internal hard disk, and the NIC, can be seen only after opening the system unit. Peripheral devices are attached to the computer system in order to perform a variety of tasks. All the hardware devices listed above are also peripheral devices." The book gives further example of computer hardware.  The book notes: "The physical parts of a computer are called the hardware. In other words, the units that are visible and units which one can touch and feel are known as the computer hardware. Some examples for hardware units or system devices are following:ProcessorDisplay Screen</li><li>Keyboard</li><li>Disk Drive</li><li>Printer, etc.</li></ul> The main parts of a computer hardware are the storage devices, the input devices, the output devices and the Central Processing Unit (CPU)."</li> <li> The book notes: "Computer hardware is the physical components of a computer. Examples include the hard disk drive, keyboard, mouse, and monitor."</li> <li> The book notes: "Examples of computer hardware include keyboards, cameras, microphones, speakers, monitors (or screens), chips, and printers. Hardware is constantly changing and expanding. For example, today most computers can handle sound, graphics, animation, and video. In the past, these features were only offered on large computers. Multimedia computer systems are now common in small businesses and homes."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The subject also passes Notability, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User Cunard thanks for posting these sources. I think this is really helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This seems a useful hub or index for a diverse but not over-large topic. Quite functional.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has lots of lists, and all this needs is a little bit of improvement.  Peter  Sam   Fan  13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete a hopelessly broad compendium disguised as a list - one that can never approach encyclopedic quality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The point of the creation of this article appears to be providing a user-friendly guideline of items that a computer is likely to have and how it all functions together. And it isn't that helpful since, first, it doesn't explain in layman's terms what each thing does and, second, we already have pages like the main article 'Computer' and the related 'Computer hardware'. What's the difference between this and, say, having: 'Guideline of the Systems in Your Car', 'Guideline of the Organs that are in Your Body', 'Guideline of the Branches in Your U.S. Federal Government', 'Guideline to the Planets in Your Solar System', etc? All of those can indeed be sourced easily, as this article here is, but why have them all? I would expect each of those things in downloadable pamphlets on college websites related to Astronomy 101 classes and so on instead. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia isn't quite the same thing as a friendly 'how to get this' exploratory text.
 * And, if we have to have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part, then... let's have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part. Add huge sections of prose to this list coupled with step-by-step illustrated instructions, maybe with a fellow taking pictures of him using a screwdriver and pointing out the specific connections here and there. Put in a bunch more links. Add a bunch more citations. And give this page a much better name, maybe 'Explanation of computer hardware functioning' say. But I'd rather this just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, no, that list is not a mistitle for "Hardware interaction in the computer". It is just like a table of contents; its only point for readers is to click on the blue links. If your point is that a navigational-only page is useless and should be deleted just for this reason, that is pretty much against any of the list guidelines. And for the record, there is List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, and, more to the point since this one is a list of bluelinks with no content, List of organs of the human body. Both of which are fine lists. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not require its own article. A category is sufficient enough (Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC))
 * For the n-th time, WP:NOTDUP. While it may be that the topic is not suitable for an article, "a category is enough" is not a valid argument. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTDUP is from a page (read the box at the top) that's id'd as an "editing guideline", not policy. And I happen to think that a category and a navbox are enough. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it. Jeh (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a major problem for some editors who can't actually think independently and who simply attempt to render argument by reference to some essay or guideline. Arguments such as "a category is enough" are indeed perfectly valid arguments.  That someone believes we need this information in three distinct formats is beyond me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the mainspace article format is the most beneficial for the general reader - our customer. Most people (our customers) come to Wikipedia only to read the articles, not to derive or discern information from categories. Also, the general reader (or lay reader) does not peruse categories, they seek out information from mainspace articles. Categories are a function of our editing, and are used for our editing. Hence, these are two different activities; one for the benefit of the lay reader and one for the benefit of editors (like us). --- Steve Quinn (talk)
 * Accepted, but a dumb list like this (which is basically a navigation aid) is no different at all to a category or a navbox. It's actually pretty hopeless.  If it approached something like Glossary of association football terms then I could understand its utility, right now it's utterly pointless.  And you make an interesting (and unfounded, or at least unverifiable) claim that categories are not used by the reader.  Can you prove that or are you just making it up?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * |List_of_cats says the category is hit a lot less though the factor is "only" of ten. It can reasonably be assumed to show that the cat page is hit less by readers (though it could be that WP editors hammered the list page even when readers prefer to use the category). I took "cats" because that is one of the default examples for the pageview tools page, could be different for other lists though. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an editing guideline "best treated with common sense and exceptions may apply", so what? Everything is subject to WP:IAR, too, but it does not mean everything is an exception to all guidelines. I have seen plenty of cases where a guideline was not followed for the greater good of WP, but if you are going to say an editing guideline such as NOTDUP should be ignored in a particular case, you better had to say why that one case warrants it ("it is beyond me" is not enough), and Ajf773 did not do that above. If you want the guideline to be ignored all the time, go ask for it to be removed at WP:VPP or wherever. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems you can't see the wood for the trees. That's fine, and you've made your point, just as many others have adequately refuted it.  This list provides nothing, absolutely nothing.  It might as well be "Words beginning with A".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being redundant, the article can easily be expanded with descriptions and other additional content. I considered doing so, but it would be pointless if the article is to then later be deleted. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America1000 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well a referenced glossary of terms would have been unlikely to have been nominated. Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I added the sources, etc. after this was nominated. In addition to qualifying for an article per WP:NOTDUP, the topic also passes WP:LISTN, having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. North America1000 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it passes WP:STAND, but expand to include basic information about each listed item, which would make it much more useful to anyone who comes across it (see List of vegetable oils, a featured list, for a good example of this being done in an acceptable manner). I would also suggest (if consensus dictates that this list fails the inclusion criteria) merging into computer hardware, with each item on the list becoming a section of the article, which already includes most of the items on the list as is. My only major concern is that this list is WP:REDUNDANT to computer hardware, though this is unlikely, since "categories, lists, and navboxes that contain the same elements are typically allowed". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 21:25, 27 May 2016 (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.