- 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 -- Y not? 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Compaq Armada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Also: Compaq Armada 1500. Essentially an advertising piece that doesn't establish notability for its own article. I see no content that is encyclopaedic - it is something best served by the company themselves. violet/riga (t) 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as basically just a list of computer models, not really valuable info. I would like to point out to the nom WP:JNN and WP:UNENCYC. Watch out :) J-stan TalkContribs 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The list lacks adequate context, just a whole bunch of model numbers. It appears more like a directory listing, which Wikipedia is not.--Alasdair 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable list. •Malinaccier• T/C 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Compaq, mention there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Complete directory. --Hirohisat Talk 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per directory arguement. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are notable products, easily meeting the notability requirements at WP:CORP. If the article needs fixing, fix it. JulesH 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are they notable? violet/riga (t) 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that they've received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] etc.) JulesH 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally there are going to be reviews of the products, but I don't see how they are notable enough to have more than the name being mentioned in the Compaq article. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if we merged all of Compaq Portable, Compaq Deskpro, Compaq LTE, Compaq Presario, Compaq Proliant, Compaq Armada, Compaq Evo, iPAQ and Tc1000 back into the Compaq article, it would become huge. The Armada is among the more notable of these product lines, I think, so I can't see that the same argument wouldn't apply to all of them. WP:CORP specifically suggests breaking products out into a separate article if this is an issue. JulesH 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except...we don't have to merge all of those articles into one place or all of the article. Compaq Portable is decently encyclopedic. I see no reason to merge it. Deskpro's content is rather short, 2-3 sentences would cover everything important in it. Most of Presario is a bunch of red links with some of the exceptions being Compaq Presario 9500 and Compaq Presario SR1920AN and Compaq Presario C300...as articles go, they'd not highly encyclopedic. Proliant? Two sentences. Evo? Not that much longer. Most of iPaq is listing model and after model. Not sure that's a good idea for an article as such. TC1000 could be something, but it's not much. Besides, you're forgetting another possibility. A merge into List of Compaq products though if it ends up looking like List of Hewlett-Packard products that may not be an improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I should note that if you can get this looking like iMac then that would demonstrate that there's an article here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except...we don't have to merge all of those articles into one place or all of the article. Compaq Portable is decently encyclopedic. I see no reason to merge it. Deskpro's content is rather short, 2-3 sentences would cover everything important in it. Most of Presario is a bunch of red links with some of the exceptions being Compaq Presario 9500 and Compaq Presario SR1920AN and Compaq Presario C300...as articles go, they'd not highly encyclopedic. Proliant? Two sentences. Evo? Not that much longer. Most of iPaq is listing model and after model. Not sure that's a good idea for an article as such. TC1000 could be something, but it's not much. Besides, you're forgetting another possibility. A merge into List of Compaq products though if it ends up looking like List of Hewlett-Packard products that may not be an improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if we merged all of Compaq Portable, Compaq Deskpro, Compaq LTE, Compaq Presario, Compaq Proliant, Compaq Armada, Compaq Evo, iPAQ and Tc1000 back into the Compaq article, it would become huge. The Armada is among the more notable of these product lines, I think, so I can't see that the same argument wouldn't apply to all of them. WP:CORP specifically suggests breaking products out into a separate article if this is an issue. JulesH 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't either, though I do respect the possibility, I'm not sure the current article is the way to go. I favor a redirect unless somebody wants to make the article more well, substantial. FrozenPurpleCube 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally there are going to be reviews of the products, but I don't see how they are notable enough to have more than the name being mentioned in the Compaq article. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that they've received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] etc.) JulesH 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are they notable? violet/riga (t) 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advertisement and directory only, this is more like a store flyer.--JForget 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I highly doubt HP (compaq) wants to advertise through wikipedia. Line of computers/laptops from major manufacturers should be notable due to the sheer number of reviews they get. Corpx 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is, how much is there to really say? Especially given the number of models involved and the customization options (less on a laptop than a desktop, but still not zero). In any case, the current state of the page is poor enough that it would need some active improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure we can piece enough together from these Corpx 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you answered my question. "How much is there to really say?" does mean that. Is there anything about the "Compaq Armada" brand as a whole? What is there to really say other than spec lists? Is that something that should be included? Are the opinions of lasting value? I'm hopeful for the potential here, but sadly, computers aren't like automobiles. People write books about Mustangs from decade to decade. Computer models? Vast majority are out and then forgotten. Still, maybe an overview of the nameplate might be possible, I just don't see it currently existing in this article. Even Dell Latitude is better. FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the same stuff you'd put down in an article about a car, say Ford Escape Corpx 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, these articles aren't even that much, but rather just specs and models. Ford Mustang or Volkswagen Beetle are much better. In this case, I say redirect until somebody builds an article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the same stuff you'd put down in an article about a car, say Ford Escape Corpx 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you answered my question. "How much is there to really say?" does mean that. Is there anything about the "Compaq Armada" brand as a whole? What is there to really say other than spec lists? Is that something that should be included? Are the opinions of lasting value? I'm hopeful for the potential here, but sadly, computers aren't like automobiles. People write books about Mustangs from decade to decade. Computer models? Vast majority are out and then forgotten. Still, maybe an overview of the nameplate might be possible, I just don't see it currently existing in this article. Even Dell Latitude is better. FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure we can piece enough together from these Corpx 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is, how much is there to really say? Especially given the number of models involved and the customization options (less on a laptop than a desktop, but still not zero). In any case, the current state of the page is poor enough that it would need some active improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards delete, waiting for more info before making a decision. spazure (contribs) 06:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.