Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wintel


 * 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. Notability is not temporary, cear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wintel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term "Wintel" is irrelevant in a modern day context. A vast majority of Microsoft Windows devices today use Intel processors. AMD and Windows RT are pretty much obscure - very few people continue to use them at this time. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reasonable, sourced, encyclopedic historical discussion of etymology of a common and widely used portmanteau. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the word is often used in the media and though it might be written in the form of personal opinion this is nothing that can't be fixed by other and more neutral editors. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * keep Why not delete MS-DOS or CP/M for the same reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ill-informed nomination, as notability is not temporary. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep nominator fails to comprehend that Wikipedia exists to cover the entire period of existence for notable topics, not just "today" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability encompasses an article's entire history. There is an overwhelming amount of coverage (even the following is not all; I put 30 of them if anyone wants to expand the article) from reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG: Esquivalience  t 00:55, 10 April 2015 (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.