Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP 200lx
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 03:54, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable early 90's PDA DCEdwards1966 09:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Wait. WHAT?!? Have you just completely lost it now DCEdwards ninteen sixty-six? What are you thinking? EXTREME KEEP —RaD Man (talk) 11:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Really, this was a bad call and you should've known better. 69,500 Google hits -> [1] —RaD Man (talk) 11:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Should've known better? Is Wikipedia a product catalog for old technology? What kind of impact has this thing had? If it has had any it should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, its just an outdated PDA. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, the person that wrote the article linked to his own personal wiki. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- External links can always be changed or deleted, although this one seems to have legitimate information on the topic so I don't see what's wrong with it. What are your criteria for a notable enough PDA that Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ fulfill and this one doesn't? That they're not outdated? I don't see that as being much of a factor since we cover all sorts of things that are outdated (like, say, Chevrolet Biscayne). It doesn't look like an advertisement for the product, it's doing no harm, and it's definitely more encyclopedic than all the Digimon minutiae we insist on keeping. — Ливай | ☺ 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- People keep saying it is notable. If so, please add what is notable about it to the article. Otherwise, it is just an old PDA. As far as other PDAs that have articles, if they were to come up one VfD I would vote on their merits. I found this one while patrolling Special:New Pages. DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- External links can always be changed or deleted, although this one seems to have legitimate information on the topic so I don't see what's wrong with it. What are your criteria for a notable enough PDA that Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ fulfill and this one doesn't? That they're not outdated? I don't see that as being much of a factor since we cover all sorts of things that are outdated (like, say, Chevrolet Biscayne). It doesn't look like an advertisement for the product, it's doing no harm, and it's definitely more encyclopedic than all the Digimon minutiae we insist on keeping. — Ливай | ☺ 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Really, this was a bad call and you should've known better. 69,500 Google hits -> [1] —RaD Man (talk) 11:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I still remember those keyboards and yes it passes the Google Test. Megan1967 00:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The HP LX machines have a substantial following even now. iMeowbot~Mw 12:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I use one. Keep. Dan100 21:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Seems notable. This one's a keeper. — Ливай | ☺ 02:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
EXTREME DELETE unless some notability is established. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)Changed to keep. The article now appears to establish some notability for the product. I will still put product articles up for deletion that are only spec sheets. DCEdwards1966 17:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)- Keep, of course. This product line is notable. GRider\talk 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- How so? DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- While the 69,000 google hits cited by RaDMaN do lend a great deal towards the notability of this handheld, so does the number of websites explicitly dedicated to the 200LX. IIRC there used to be a paper-based magazine also for HP Palmtops geared towards the 200LX. As Livajo also points out, we have articles for Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ as well. Most outstanding is that this is a long expired piece of hardware and still it is garnering a relatively very high hit count. There is no point in the senseless deletion of this article, bytes are cheap and Wikipedia is not paper. GRider\talk 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So, it is encyclopedic because it has fans? Was it the first to use some new technology? Did it do something better than any other PDA? Saying that one article belongs because we have articles about other equally non-notable subjects is not a very good argument. Rather than adding more non-encyclopedic articles we should be removing the ones that already exist. DCEdwards1966 04:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- The Grateful Dead has fans, should we delete them too? Please do not twist my words around. Yes, the number of "fans" is a good beacon for how notable something may be. My argument isn't how many fans they have, but that this article has an excellent opportunity for growth and expansion and there is no clear advantage to the slashing and burning of valuable Wikipedia articles. What was yours? GRider\talk 21:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My point was that the article is a spec sheet. There is nothing about how this particular is different from any other PDA of the time. DCEdwards1966 22:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- None of these suggestions are valid reasons for deletion. VfD is not Cleanup. GRider\talk 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS NOTABILITY. DCEdwards1966 01:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- It sold well? It is well-known in its field? It has a substantial following of users, and continues to be sold popularly even though HP doesn't actively advertise it [2]? I fail to see how this does not make it notable and what harm is being done by keeping these pages on specific PDAs (has it occurred to you that somebody might be interested in this information and might expect, or be pleasantly surprised, to find it in a comprehensive encyclopedia?) — Ливай | ☺ 12:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And by the way, the suggestions are obviously not reasons to delete. My suggestions, if implemented, would be reasons to keep. Also, I did not twist your words around. I have been asking for some sign of notability for this product. The only thing you said that even remotely seemed to be answering the question was that fans existed. DCEdwards1966 01:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS NOTABILITY. DCEdwards1966 01:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- None of these suggestions are valid reasons for deletion. VfD is not Cleanup. GRider\talk 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My point was that the article is a spec sheet. There is nothing about how this particular is different from any other PDA of the time. DCEdwards1966 22:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- The Grateful Dead has fans, should we delete them too? Please do not twist my words around. Yes, the number of "fans" is a good beacon for how notable something may be. My argument isn't how many fans they have, but that this article has an excellent opportunity for growth and expansion and there is no clear advantage to the slashing and burning of valuable Wikipedia articles. What was yours? GRider\talk 21:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So, it is encyclopedic because it has fans? Was it the first to use some new technology? Did it do something better than any other PDA? Saying that one article belongs because we have articles about other equally non-notable subjects is not a very good argument. Rather than adding more non-encyclopedic articles we should be removing the ones that already exist. DCEdwards1966 04:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- While the 69,000 google hits cited by RaDMaN do lend a great deal towards the notability of this handheld, so does the number of websites explicitly dedicated to the 200LX. IIRC there used to be a paper-based magazine also for HP Palmtops geared towards the 200LX. As Livajo also points out, we have articles for Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ as well. Most outstanding is that this is a long expired piece of hardware and still it is garnering a relatively very high hit count. There is no point in the senseless deletion of this article, bytes are cheap and Wikipedia is not paper. GRider\talk 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- How so? DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Alfio 16:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Easily clears the bar Philip 02:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I own one and it seems notable to me. --JuntungWu 04:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I made the topic. =p I own one and have never been able to find a comparible device. Small, qwerty keyboard, rugged, very expandible (at least for its time), runs DOS. All that aside, it was a highly notible landmark in palmtops at the time, and a moneymaker for HP right up until they pulled the plug in preference for ce machines. Yes, it was profitable and they stopped production anyway. This topic should remain because of the historical placement the device has in the history of palmtops. Yes Wikipedia is a catalogue of old products, especially uniquely notible and highly influential ones. Yes I linked to my own work. To that end, i'm willing to donate all the info from there here if there is sufficient interest, although all the various rough notes probably don't belong here. My own website plug is not vanity, I'm quite proud of this device and apparently others are too. -- Sy 22:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.