Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReactiveMicro.com

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Hey neckbeards, the site is referenced 13 times here on wiki. Better start a discussion and delete them all! Hurry![reply]

ReactiveMicro.com

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

Unsourced computer parts website, not an OEM and possibly going out of business. MBisanz ^talk

01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Almost a speedy. An unreferenced advert, with no encyclopedic value. Mattg82 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, spammy, probably some original research and doesn't establish notability. fetchcomms☛ 05:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company does appear to be genuine, and I've found a few references - [1], [2], [3]. Not sure how notable they are, mind (and there are lots more non-notable ones in chats etc). -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious spam. Haakon (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Site is not SPAM, and the company has been in business since 1991. Why would anyone say the Site is SPAM? Because it's well written and run? A simple check of the CSA2 UseNet would prove otherwise. And whoever in their right mind really thinks Wiki is the place to advertise (no offense Wiki) to attract business? The ReactiveMicro.com Site has been around since 2005 in one form or another. We are the ONLY company out there that actively reverse engineers and clones Apple's equipment from 1985-1990. We are the only 'real' company out there that supports Apple II products on a full time basis, and I take that very seriously. I added the article and links from other articles to specifically help new users from the Apple II Community find available resources. Isn't this what Wiki is partly about? Maybe I've missed something, but removing the article would be akin to removing GE because they just happen to sell stuff. Users from the Apple II Community have actively added and made corrections as they have seen fit. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why such an issue with the page? Reactive1 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I would like to make a repllies to the comments here--althought I am not too sure if this is the right way to make a comment on this subject matter.

1. MDisanz stated that it is "unsourced computer parts website, not an OEM and possibly going out of business."

Well, the fact that there is no company in the world that is in business that was in business when the apple2's were being made is one fact to point out. That being said, there is no OEM except for a select few companies, one of which is reactivemicro, ultimateapple2, a2retrosystems, 8bitsystem, 16sector, and maybe a few others at most. All of the products produced are new, manufactured by hand, at the ___location of this company. All PCB facrication and assembly is done inhouse. All items with an exception of just a few are items that are OEM and branded as such.

2. Mattg82 said "Almost a speedy. An unreferenced advert, with no encyclopedic value."

Not sure why it would be a speedy, as his comment almost doesnt have any type of factual elements to back up why it would almost be a speedy. As for being unreferenced, please expand on this so that full compliance can be met and be specific. If there is an issue with unreferenced items being listed, and that is gounds for a deletion, please elaborate on what needs to be addressed. As for the last part of the comment of "no encyclopedia value", I would have to ask why it holds no value because there seems to be lots of value to the community as this community is growing each and every day even in this rocky economy. People searching wiki will see that there is a big company who manufactures products for the vintage commiunity and is notoriable.

3. Boing! said "The company does appear to be genuine, and I've found a few references " ---Yes, it is totally genuine. Thank you for doing some research to at least chime in on this in a fair and balanced manner. We really appreciate your time on this and look forward to any help that you can provide.

4. Haakon said "obvious spam." ---Sorry, not spam at all at least from our prospective. Hakkon, do you participate in the vintage computer hobby? Do you own an Apple2? Do you have knowledge about this particular hobby of vintage computing yourself? I would love to agree with your comment on this subject matter, but I simply have to disagree. There are people of the community that apprecitae a wiki article and dont find it is not spam like at all.

We am not attacking anyone here and we dont take anything at all personal. We do however want to be heard and feel that by responding to comments directly will help get all of the issues corrected. Our goal here is to be in full compliance with all of your rules. Please help us in achieving this goal. Amart79196 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy:WP has very strict guidelines on Notability; articles need to be verifiable with reliable sources. If we look at the second sentence in the article, The only such company left that reproduces Apple II related hardware.; if this was mentioned in an Apple related magazine for example, it would help the website meet notability requirements.

At this stage I don't believe your company meets this criteria but I nothing against copying this article to your user space. Mattg82 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://a2central.com, the leading Apple II hobby Site out there for news and updates, has our Site listed under the Vendors section (bottom left). A quick search of the Site reveals over three pages of articles written about us, and hobbyist who we vend/support for. Here's a Japanese Site that references us: http://www.apple2world.jp/mediawiki/index.php/ReactiveMicro.com. Yeah, that's English that mentions we're the only ones who do what we do. I'd also mention the work we've done to reverse engineer the SC-01 speech chip, but I see that too has been removed already from the Wiki page. One site that didn't forget us though: http://redcedar.com/sc01.htm Enough sites? I'm still not understanding the big deal about the page being left up? I don't see how we ever offended anyone. It's not like we're hawking items on it. We referenced projects and partnerships, and all for the benefit of the Apple II Community and those researching the Apple II in general. As far an 'notability', compared to Microsoft I would agree. We're a company geared to support hobbyists, destined for nothing more then trying to expand upon an old platform, to heighten the users retro experience, and to offer help and support where we can. But within the Apple II Community, we are peerless, and I strongly believe the facts will support that statement.Reactive1 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't offended anybody, its just that AFD is a piranha club; anything remotely seen as advertising will usually get the chop. I sympathize with you being just a hobbyists website and that you created the article in good faith which is why I recommend you copy the article to your user space. This will give you the wiki space you want and it can still be linked to from other websites. Mattg82 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As for the concern on an Apple related magazine for notability, "juicedGS" is the last known publication which is still produced for the apple2. This publication should provide the notability what is in question. Hopefully that will put the notability issue to rest. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed, please comment here so that we can work on correcting this wiki article and to get off the AfD list. Amart79196 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (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.