Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac

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. Pliché has been restored, since it's undiscussed. Anyone wanting the content to make an EPower that meets WP:N can ask at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, but there really isn't any worth having. Wily D 08:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub full of spelling punctuation errors (even in the title!). Content could probably be merged into the iMac article if necessary. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. The article Desktop computer is currently a mess (though I'm trying to tidy it up) but it does include a discussion on all-in-one desktop computers mentioning the iMac. The first-generation iMac was notable for its all-in-one form factor with CRT and electronics combined, though later iMacs had different form factors. No point in merging this because it's even less clear than what you get from All-in-One PC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains the same facts and format as the 2007 revision, but the spelling and grammar have been altered for the worse. Considering that in five years, no additional significant facts or related information has been published, it is a waste of a MB on a server. Frankly, an article discussing things that resemble other things is a laughable topic. --Stealthninjaduck (talk) 25 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As in List of rock formations that resemble human beings. --Lambiam 06:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and reinstate the two articles, followed by a housekeeping deletion of the nominated article title. The article history shows that this article was previously located at EPower, which may be notable. Pliché has also been redirected to Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac. -- Trevj (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the subjects' notability will have to be established anyway. If it not be, the article will be deleted — why trouble ourselves with splitting in this case? Keφr (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observing a judicious process does not signify or necessitate bureaucracy. A valid AFD nomination requires that incompetence and vandalism do not compromise the article, such that the subsequent discussion is an accurate and fair procedure. Whatever the issues affecting the original articles on EPower and Pliché, they properly warrant a separate discussion, without reference to the ineptitude that ultimately prompted the nomination of the article entitled 'computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac'. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Pliché hasn't been nominated, so I agree that an appropriate discussion would be required. -- Trevj (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per Trevj and WP:BEFORE B. §3. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a need to close the discussion per the above suggestion. While it might be reasonable under other circumstances, the entire history of EPower is at the current article, and it never has been substantially better than it is now. The history of Pliché is essentially the same. Those who opine here are not being misled, and if there is evidence of notability of either of the two machines, it can be established here and the article moved as needed. I do not see sufficient proof of notability to justify the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're discussing the two articles (which isn't obvious from the AfD title), then either

This AfD should be closed and a new one started; or
This one needs relisting and appropriate direction advised for those discussing.

-- Trevj (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just to ensure there's no confusion, I'm not suggesting that any article be deleted other than the one nominated. All I suggest is that thisarticleis no different from others that have been moved - we take the article on its merits, and on that basis this article imho should be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:12, 3 October 2012 (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.