Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macintosh 128K/512K technical details


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Macintosh 128K/512K technical details

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Half mumbo-jumbo about the specs, and the rest could either be merged (or already exists) in Macintosh 128K. The current title is not appropriate, as it suggests something contrary to WP:NOTDIR. AfD from 2006 ended in a merge, but it never actually occurred.  — fetch ·  comms   02:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; the extra details are not useful to most readers, and the rest is already in the main article. PleaseStand (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete though I hate myself for saying so. I personally love this kind of technocruft. But there's no independent notability here - it needs to be in the main article. Thparkth (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING comes to mind. PleaseStand (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, but in this case I'm saying. "This is very interesting to me. Please delete it." ;) Thparkth (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge any relevant info into the main article. Delete the rest, as who is going to search "Macintosh 128K/512K technical details" when looking for Macintosh 128K/512K? Airplaneman   ✈  04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is perfectly acceptable per Manual of Style (summary style), specifically WP:DETAIL. Without a separate article, there would be considerable overlap between large sections of Macintosh 128K, Macintosh 512K, and Macintosh 512Ke. While I'd still really like to see some additional footnotes in this article, I don't see any glaring content errors and the content of the article itself is certainly not in dispute. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content is probably verifiable, and seems useful. (And interesting.) I agree that the title is bad. --Pnm (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Suitable way of covering the complex subject to avoid duplication.  DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — and rename.  m o n o   18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename if necessary. There are enough reliable sources that discuss this to write a separate verifiable article. - EdoDodo  talk 15:33, 2 June 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.