Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z80182


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Z80182

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product. A merge back to Z180 would be possible, but that article already contains the relevant material from this one. And that target article is probably deletable, as well. Mikeblas (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of WP:NOTABILITY. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The article contains considerably more information than the line in the merged table. (and they contradict each other about the presence of timers, so that needs to be checked) Each of the variants was a very important product in their time. This is individually discussed in a standard textbook of the period Milman's electronics, a/c Google books . there should be a good deal of material in the computer & hobbyist magazines of the period. DGG (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete as the nominator offers a good alternative such as merger to Z180. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If you used a modem (amongst other things) made sometime between the mid 1990s and 2001 or so (and I'm not talking about one of those winmodem things), you likely used one of these chips. An argument of "Non-notable product" for this particular component has to be one of the silliest "notability" arguments I've ever heard. Heck, I can't even fathom why the nom would also claim that the Zilog Z180 article "is probably deletable, as well". Now, if the real issue is that the datasheets are not being cited in either of these articles, that can certainly be fixed without too much trouble but an editorial issue such as that would not be a proper reason to bring this article to AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2009 (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.