Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mechanical keyboards (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. Consensus was this subject passes WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

List of mechanical keyboards
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia isn't a buyer's guide. Also, this list will never become exhaustive and it's not worth spending so much effort to keep it up to date. « « «  SOME GADGET GEEK  » » » (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. « « «  SOME GADGET GEEK  » » » (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * delete WP:NOTDIR and per nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP I have contacted everyone who participated in the previous AFD for this to tell them someone decided to nominate it again already. List articles do not have to become "exhaustive", nor do they have to be up to date.  Many articles are not up to date.  Not valid reasons to delete.  This aids in navigation, plenty of blue links to articles for mechanical keyboards, so is a valid list article.   D r e a m Focus  02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:LISTN, "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". Mechanical keyboards have been discussed as a group by reliable sources as discussed in the previous AFD. Lack of exhaustiveness/lack of maintenance is not a WP:DELREASON. Wikipedia is not a catalogue, but this article is not written in catalogue style and as such this does not apply.
 * I'm not particularly down with messaging all the previous participants because often these discussions need a new set of eyes, but messaging everybody who previously discussed it is acceptable and should not draw accusations of WP:CANVAS. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The hostility to this topic seems odd when here we are, all using keyboards. Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.  Anyway, the topic easily passes WP:LISTN – see PC News, for example.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — The article doesn't include prices for the keyboards which does not make it a buyer's guide. Everything in the article is backed up by sources. The list passes WP:LISTN, without a hitch. There aren't any good points made by the nominator nor participants to delete the article.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per everything said in the previous AFD. The new argument here is that we are not a buyers' guide.  Very true, we are not, but per Capt. M., a buyers' guide includes prices.  It also requires the commodity to be buyable, which in many cases, such as the IBM Model F keyboard, they are not.  However, I would support tightening the inclusion criteria and purging the entries that do not meet it.  The ones with bluelinks to articles are ok, but for the others, a reference to the manufacturer's marketing page is just not acceptable.  An independent ref with some encyclopaedic discussion needs to be provided. SpinningSpark 14:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure if there is a policy-based argument to this, but Wikipedia has a lot of CRUFTy lists; this is a borderline case of those. I've seen a lot CRUFTier lists, some of which have survived AfD. Doug Mehus T · C  16:55, 3 December 2019 (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.