Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TI-84

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect to TI-84 Plus.

Delete; the TI-84 isn't a real calculator. It's probably been confused with TI-84 Plus. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:52, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. There is no such calculator model. (In case you are wondering, the proper name of the 2004 upgrade is the TI-84 Plus. 66.245.108.29 00:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've made it into a redirect. If one person made the mistake, its reasonable to retain as a redirect. (As a side comment, I think all the TI graphing calculator stubs should be merged into one article). -- Netoholic @ 01:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please let others have a vote before you make it a redirect. I have reverted it to the non-redirect version.  My vote will be to make it a redirect, but please, I'm asking very nicely, give the rest of the community a little time. Geogre 02:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * With the VfD notice in place on top, it was a soft redirect (didn't actually take you to TI-84 Plus). Editors are encouraged to improve VfD pages during the voting - this is one such improvement.  If anyone can make a better edit of it, they can. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. Comment: In this case, I think Netoholic's change was appropriate.  Rossami 05:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect. (Side note: IMHO, Netoholic's being bold was perfectly acceptable. If anything, he could've provided a link to the previous version  as a courtesy to other voters, but it's no biggie.) &bull; Benc &bull; 06:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * (I wrote the original article), I put it on TI-84 because there are indeed two types the TI-84 Plus and the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition and they are most commonly referred to as the TI-84 whatever their official name may be. And yeah, great work removing the interwiki link. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   14:09, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep or Redirect . On second thought, I agree with Gwalla, that all the TI-8X/92 calculators should be merged into a single article, with Redirects. Improv 19:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ævar, where should the interwiki go now? The is: article is TI-84, so the proper place I guess would be here at TI-84 Plus? --Golbez 17:22, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It seems like most of these calculator entries are just one or two sentences, (with a few exceptions). Perhaps most of them (per brand) could be merged into one article?, with the more notible ones keeping their own page, (and with all appropriate redirects, of course). func(talk) 19:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Redirect to TI-84 Plus. I wouldn't mind if all of the TI graphing calculators were merged into a single article, but that's not at issue here.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Shouldn't have been listed on VfD, and should have been removed once it was clear it was a redirect. zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 19:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect, obviously. Why is this even on VfD? Andre 20:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. If anyone types in TI-84, it's pretty obvious what they're looking for.  Personally I feel Texas Instruments is doing everyone a disservice by updating the 83 and calling it a whole new calculator, but that's beside the point.  --Alexwcovington 01:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What are we waiting for before this template can be removed?? It got to old pages easily, and what should happen before it can be removed?? 66.245.71.98 15:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)