Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage computer


 * 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 merge to retrocomputing. Neıl ☎  15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vintage computer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is not encyclopedic, and topic doesn't need its own page. Fails OR and RS. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into History of computing hardware (1960s–present) Doc Strange (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Doc Strange. The material in the article is already covered in exhaustive detail in History of Apple and subarticles. The term is more likely to reduce surprise if redirected at the other article, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't really see the exhaustive references you mention, but I concur that it could in part be covered here as well. However, as I point out below ... Vintage computing has a rather large following not exclusive of Apple Inc.--Mac128 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what I actually said. In any case, this article is not really referenced either. As to your last point, that is in fact exactly what I was saying. THe term applies to all personal computing, but the only specific discussion is of Apple products. This article is, at best, woefully incomplete. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it is incomplete which is why merging it into Retrocomputing makes the most sense as it too is incomplete with only one reference to an IBM. It was my understanding WP was a continual work in progress.--Mac128 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the similar article on other subjects like Vintage cars (see alsoVintage (disambiguation))--Mac128 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article only scratches the surface of my own experience with such groups and as such briefly mentions Apple Inc. only. The reality is the vintage computer community is enormous, spanning all makes and models, even predating personal computers. While I have not conducted personal research into the numerous news articles surrounding this niche community it often surfaces as a newsworthy item and therefore seems worthy of note here. My hope in starting the article was to encourage others to flesh it out. While I don't disagree this is an offshoot the History of computing hardware (1960s–present), the potential wealth of data that may accumulate under this sub-topic could easily lead to an excessive and unnecessary primary article length. However I will accept the verdict of the Wiki community.--Mac128 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I also based the article on a similar Apple-related article, Apple rumors community.--Mac128 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Vintage Computing, as Vintage Computer has a specific connotation that is perhaps best redirected to History of computer hardware and since the vintage computer community involves vintage software as well.--Mac128 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've given two opinions here - to keep, and to rename. Do you want to merge those? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks.--Mac128 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit unclear on that. What is your opinion - to keep, or to merge? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to merge.--Mac128 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Retrocomputing which already exisits and Vintage computing already re-directs there.--Mac128 (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I could go along with a redirect to that title. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect Vintage computer to History of computer hardware as I proposed above. --Mac128 (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just didn't do my homework.--Mac128 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge to retrocomputing - seems like the most sensible option.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see much to merge - that fan club of Apple II exists? So what, there are people collecting Amigas, Be-boxes or Vax machines. Technical museums did recreate a really old systems - Babbage's or Zuse's. Should WP became directory of such activities? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be mistaken about my intent. The article is designed for ALL vintage computers, I just started it with Apple. I think the existence of websites like this (vintagecomputing.com)]  and others] support the notable inclusion of these collectors and enthusiasts in WP.--Mac128 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (two external links fixed). One link does not work, the other points to someone selling old Apples. IMO vintage computers are notable topic but the current text is not what one would expect from encyclopedia. In my experience this type of article needs to be created (almost) complete, otherwise it will stay untouched for years useful only for spammers. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep just like Vintage cars vintage computers are noteworthy too Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The merger recommendations made above indicate that yes, they are noteworthy, and they are covered in existing articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The individual computers are notable, and so is the class of objects and the activities surrounding them. By the reasoning above, we'd delete the article on "computer" DGG (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to retrocomputing per Hisspaceresearch. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!  23:51, 2 January 2008 (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.