Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SunPCi


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SunPCi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obscure product. Should not have its own article per WP:NPRODUCT Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge Let's not remove the information about this widely sold product. The information should be kept, but it can be merged into another one. I would propose a new article, such as "List of Sun Microsystems products", which other articles could also be merged into. Dwaro (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Keep: (Speedy entitle as we are here due to article spat) Yes WP:NPRODUCT does say merge, but not when target becomes unwieldy. Good real merges are actually tricky and often risk disrupting and stunting a target with issues of WP:UNDUE weight and stuff, all things taking a lot of effort to manage well.  I would also note nom. has not inidcated he has followed WP:BEFORE C.3 an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag ...  This alone entitles a technical keep albeit seeming not a speedy for failure to follow procedure.  The article does have some sourcing/referencing issues currently but that is likely addressable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changed to Speedy keep because having just been down to consider adding a source to the article it appears there was a spat over a citation in which the nom. may well have been justified or not but taking the article to WP:AFD was likely because of that spat and that spat was not declared on the nomination, thus I contend the nomination was frivolous or vexatious per WP:SKCRIT 2a and was likely why WP:BEFORE C.2 C.3 was not followed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked around. Product does not show indication of general notability as far as I can tell and that is a valid reason for a nomination. Graywalls (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a valid reason for following WP:BEFORE and when getting to C.3 tagging for notability for a couple of month or letting the project know rather than a delete mentality. The project might have broader vision on a possible set of merges for example.  As it is here I'm very in line with the keep.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as a procedural close per Djm-leighpark. (note: I reverted one edit by the nom with a summary directing to talk. This nomination was created 14 minutes after the talk edit by the nom.) --mikeu talk 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:BEFORE C§3 and WP:SKCRIT 2§d, as noted above. Now also WP:BEFORE C§1 plus the unwieldy provision of WP:PRODUCT. --mikeu talk 23:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I have changed my vote to speedy keep due to compelling arguments. Dwaro (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @: I am going to challenge you to-confirm this WP:VAGUEWAVE !vote based on subsequent improvements to this article, the number of challenges to your work on your talk page (some made by myself), and the claims to have created the articles and  on  where the links play through to substantial articles created by others rather than redirects created by yourself.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Earlier I don't saw it properly but now I am in favour of keeping this article. Kitaab Ka Kida (talk)
 * Keep I believe that it would be useful for some for the article to not be deleted. A-NEUN (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it has made me mull over whether it would be TempleOS capable … we'd better point out specific notability sources are from (Tougaw 2000); (Railsback 1999) & (Barker 1999) with (Conover 1995); (Comerford 1999); (Wylie 1992) also possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:32, 19 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.