Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmigaOne

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. --

AmigaOne

Notability not established. Not

• Added references: commerical magazine articles (Micro Mart) --Svenof9 11:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a very important concept in the Amiga fandom, and was covered everywhere in the Amiga media when it was first announced. JIP | Talk 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - added some more references to prove the existance of the AmigaOne line, which are still the only pure PPC-based Amiga line ever produced. 80.176.86.110 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of 3rd party references, seems notable to me. Also note it would not be good to merge to Amiga, as that article is 32k, on the verge of the suggested max article size, so we are trying to trim sections out into sub-articles. Mdwh 14:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existing product. Out of production. Discontinued. Encyclopaedicly irrelevant. 85.138.1.15 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that the product is non-existent (in the sense of it never existing) is false. It is discontinued, but there are plenty of articles on discontinued products (for starters, the Amiga article and all the articles for every other Amiga machine). Mdwh 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can it be discontinued if it's nonexistent? JIP | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The one that proposed this deletion knows what an Amiga is? He is kidding right? 151.46.9.80 18:34, 22 October 2006
• Keep - Certainly notable as one of the very few non-Apple consumer PPC-based computers and within the context of the Amiga, even if only around 1000 were made. Whether or not the product is in production is irrelevant.--Alex Whittaker 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no references? I see a bunch of references at the bottom of the article. They aren't as specific as they could be, but that certainly isn't a cause for deletion. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Right up there with
  Timex-Sinclair, also no longer in production. Remember whan 64 k of memory, a and a 4 meg procesor speed could entertain and handle word processing? The Amiga was so far ahead of the aforementioned. Edison 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The only PPC Amiga ever made. --
  Mwongozi 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep amigaone is extremely notable please tell me this is a joke Yuckfoo 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Deletion? Don't be silly! AmigaONE was a brand of computer on the market since two years ago. You can't cancel this evidence and if you consider Wikipedia a serious Encyclopedia, so feel free to start deleting all invoices of:
  Acorn BBC, Sinclair QL, Commodore 65
  , and so on. The fact that these computers had a little market, and could had had just little/medium/great impact in the history of computing does not prevent they have not existed for real and should to be mentioned into an Encyclopedia. Even if they had poor userbase.

[1]

And see how much AmigaONE is notable (or not) into computers.

Don't be so moronish to delete AmigaONE article. Just don't make Wikipedia from other nations laugh at you of English version. Other language versions respect well Amiga articles. Here in Italy for example there is a good respect of Amiga invoices into Wikipedia.

Ciao, --Raffaele Megabyte 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable series of mainboards. — A.M. 06:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An important part of the ongoing history of the Amiga computer platform. -- Nomad Of Norad 06:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Actually the article is referenced, just not in the latest cite ref format implemented on Wikipedia. Most older articles are in this same state, or much worse. As for the subject itself it is notable and should be covered by Wikipedia without question. Yamaguchi先生 07:34, 24 October 2006

• Keep - Maybe this board didn't sold in the millions, but I believe it is still part of the Amiga history.

• Keep - Part of the still not dead AmigaOS history, with a few thousand boards in existence, and the board that the pre-release of Amiga OS4 was released on. I find it unlikely that all entries referencing Amiga OS 4 will be removed as well, so it seems obvious people might want to know what board the OS was originally released for. Not a spectacular board, but still part of AmigaOS history.
• Keep Just to endorse everybody else here, and to ask for a Snowball if possible. I think there's a clear consensus developed. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME KEEP hello perfectly verifiable, known to exist, of significant historical value... add references to this, dont delete it... Jeez MER-C, its a good thing your not running the whole show here, I'd expect to see Computer deleted next!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unambiguous Keep ...please. —
  talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep its a bit early for april fools day jokes. I vote for penalties for unjustifiable use = abuse of the VfD process. I criteria would be the number of nominations with a rejection rate of 90%+ --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - obvious keep. This is an embarrassing AfD. There were 70 edits by 40 different editors before this article was nominated. There's no record of any shortcomings being noted or discussed prior to the AfD. I think nominator means well and acted in good faith but ... well, this was a big mistake. Even for folks that have never heard of Amigas, there's still a process of consensus in addressing problems and it should normally start on the talk page before it goes to AfD. (Actually, it should start with a look at the article's history -- this article dates back almost 4 years.) --A. B. 22:33, 24 October 2006 (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.