Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer system manufacturers (2nd 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   Keep. Clear consensus to keep and that this list is not a DIRECTORY (same as last AfD). Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

List of computer system manufacturers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

For a time this list was maintained, amongst others by myself as per the criterias set on the talkpage. As it looks today however, it has become a huge list of possibly non-notable entries. As the only inclusion criterias used to be that there was an article about the companies listed, the list could easily be replaced by a category. Unless anyone can come up with some useful inclusion criterias, as well as any other content to keep in the list, I believe that we're better off by deleting it. Bjelleklang -  talk 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bjelleklang.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination's objection is to particular entries and this is best addressed by editing the article in the usual way rather than by deletion, per WP:BEFORE. A category is not an acceptable replacement per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now; I tagged it with "rewrite". This list has info not easy to give in categories alone. It's probably better to split it (either in separate lists or subsections) in order reorganize it though. First, "computer system manufacturers" is too general. Do embedded systems count? Can't tell from the article or talk page. It should be divided by mainframe / personal computers etc. Second, it needs reogranization w.r.t. the status of the company. For instance, I added RCA and General Electric to the "defunct" section (both were mainframe mfgs.), but this isn't entirely right, as GE surely is not defunct (it just doesn't produce general purpose computers anymore), and even the RCA label/trademark is still in use after chuncks of the company were sold to other corporations (by GE, isn't that confusing?!) Look at List_of_computer_hardware_manufacturers or List of laptop brands and manufacturers for comparison. If we just nuke the whole material, it will make it more difficult for editors to produce more organized list. Pcap ping  18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  19:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The usual inclusion criteria for this sort of list is, at minimum, being notable enough for a stand-alone non-redirect Wikipedia article, as per WP:LSC and WP:WTAF.  If there's non-notable entries there, remove them if they're redlinks, or afd the entries.  If the topic's too broad, and I concede that it might be, split it, perhaps into List of desktop computer manufacturers, List of embedded system manufacturers, etc. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because it adds value over the category (at least in the defunct section) and has potential for further improvement. Polarpanda (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Why "in the defunct section"? We don't remove articles about companies just because they're defunct.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories don't describe why the mfg is important, redlines can always be removed, this article provides a bridge between the history of computing - defines it specifically to manufacturers - instead of just a categorical list. Timmccloud (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and of course remove the ones that do not have WP articles or that are obviously qualified for them--in which case one should be written. That someone need actually say that a listing of computer manufacturers is a important thing before we can have one here is not reasonable. a list of notable examples of a notable topic is a suitable article. 2 time 2 = 4 is not OR, and that's all we're doing here.  (BTW, is Gavin asserting nobody has ever compoiled a list of computer manufacturers? We could undoubtedly find them, but its not the least necessary) DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 May 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.