Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Microsystems keyboard


 * 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 delete. The issue is the notability, or not, of this article topic. There has not been evidence that this article meets the standard of the appropriate notability guideline and some editors are affirmatively suggesting it does not leading to a delete consensus. It is important to note that while everything that is included in Wikipedia must be verifiable not everything that is verifiable is included. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sun Microsystems keyboard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not everything that verifiably exists needs an article, we are not a product guide. No evidence of notability. Sources added after it was Prod'ded, but these include unreliable sources like personal webpages and wikis, and a how-to page with very limited information about the actual subject. Fram (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what exactly differentiates e.g. Mac book page (or rather a page about historical hardware) from this one on a generic level ? How is that not a "product guide" ? As for the sources, this is the best that could be found on the internet I believe. The how to page was specifically included for verifiability that the actual key combination exists. Is verifiability important or not ? I created this page because I posses knowledge that is not to be found anywhere else and there is no such document that would include all the information in one place. Also, I have the intent to keep improving the page. Have to admit I am baffled. Vladcz (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2019 (CET)
 * The problem is not the effort you put into the article, but simply that you have provided us with the the best that could be find, and it isn't good enough. For e.g. the Mac book there are plenty of good sources about its design, impact, ... Such reliable sources giving significant attention to this keyboard seem to be lacking, and that means that we shouldn't have an article on it. Wikipedia is not meant to be the first site to write at length about something, but an site which summarizes other sources. Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey ! Thanks for your contribution. I would also like to see an article about Sun Microsystems keyboards, because they are definitely a notable thing in computing history. The problem is that Wikipedia does not allow original research and that Deskthority can be modified by anyone and is not authored by a single expert. The information is probably correct and I'm also looking for more sources about the keyboard. Maybe some information could be moved into the article about Sun Microsystems. Deskthority allows originial research, so I would strongly recommend you to at least make sure all your research is also published there. Dwaro (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep But I would like to keep the article and mark it as unsourced or unreferenced, so it has room for improvement if new sources are found. The keyboard technology is older than the web, so I'm sure it exists in print form. A lot of articles in the Category:Sun_Microsystems_hardware are barely sourced but still exists. It is also a fine addition to Template:Sun hardware. The nominator said "we are not a product guide", but none of these hardware has been sold for years. It purely exists for historical purposes. Dwaro (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A "product guide" as in a manual for an oldtimer car, not an advertisement of new hardware. We have articles on old cars, of course, but not on e.g. the steering wheels or the dashboards of one particular model. That reliable older sources exist is pure speculation though, and the current article has very little basic information (when where these produced) or any indication why they would be notable (they existed, that's about it). Like you say, what we have now is mainly WP:OR with a few highly unreliable sources added to it. Moving it to draft so that it has 6 more months to find those sources may be a good idea, but keeping an article in the mainspace in the probably vain hope that better sources will materialize is not the best way forward. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at Category:Computer_keyboard_models, there are multiple articles about individual keyboards, so the comparison between steering wheels is not entirely correct. Sun Microsystems was a major computer manufacturer in the past, comparable to Apple who has multiple articles about individual keyboards. Note that this article is about all the keyboards produced by Sun, there aren't separate articles for every keyboard made by Sun. A reason for their notability is their influence on the design of today's keyboards. Dwaro (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "A reason for their notability is their influence on the design of today's keyboards.": citation needed. If they are influential on today's keyboards, then there should be articles, books, ... actually indicating this, and one would expect these to be available online in some form. The apparent lack of such sources shows that these keyboards were not influential (or that no one has recognised this influence openly, which is for our purposes the same). Fram (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, the HHKB: "The keys are arranged in a layout resembling the Sun Type 3 keyboard.". The Sun keyboards were also the first with a compose key for Unix machines. Also, browsing the Apple hardware articles, most of them don't have any reason specified why they are notable. They exist and are produced by Apple. The Apple Extended Keyboard lists some unique features without any source. Dwaro (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, not another Wikipedia article. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, perhaps some of these other articles should be deleted as well, perhaps they just need the good sources which are available to be added. Fram (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to keep the information in this article and reach a consensus. The parts about specific keyboard models could be merged into the appriopiate computer model articles and merge the generic information into the article about Sun Microsystems But still, I think it is really unfair considering the Apple keyboard article has been tagged for lacking citations since 2006, but pretty much nothing has been deleted. Why is valuable historic information about a previously significant computer vendor being discared this quickly? Dwaro (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because we only consider information "valuable" if other reliable sources have first considered it as such. If no good sources feel the need to spend serious attention to these keyboards, then we shouldn't be the first one to do so. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, not a secondary source. Fram (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many topics that can be reliably sourced and while a fan site can be built around it, that would not entitle an inclusion on Wikipedia. Something being verifiable through a reliable source is a requirement for contents within an article, but the subject of the article must first meet the requirements for WP:GNG; and in some cases, such as organizations, companies and products, which; as described in WP:NORG have stronger emphasis on quality of sources. What is said in Special:diff/930440686 is not advisable per Attribution. Anyone can claim to be an expert. Putting one's own thoughts onto a website, then citing to that website can not be done as a way to circumvent the WP:NOR rules. I agree with the nominator that this article should be deleted on notability grounds. Graywalls (talk) 03:54, 15 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.