Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio 9860 series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 without prejudice against a future merger into a list article of Casio calculators when one is written. The discussion below reached a rough consensus that we ought to keep some description of this (and most other) Casio calculator series, as the information can be sourced and there exists independent media coverage to make them notable. An eventual merge into a list article may be a better way to present the information, but there is little appetite for outright deletion. Deryck C. 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio 9860 series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Essentially a fansite. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see the problem with keeping articles about individual models/series of electronic calculators from major manufacturers, provided they have substantial content (as this one does). In terms of notability, there are media references to this series of calculators (e.g. [1]). In any event, how is this worse than having an article on an individual model/series of cars? SJK (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst(conjugate) 00:55, 3 February 2016 (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.