Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Storage Personal Computing

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Virtual Storage Personal Computing

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable IBM service. Fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any sources about it expect one small 40-year old German article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources which meet WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was definitely not a niche service when it was offered (I used it around 1980), although it was subsequently quickly made obsolete by the Personal Computer. I was about fifteen years old at that time, so most of the users of VSPC will be retired or dead by now, and hence do not bother to digitize old documentation that they may still have. For a service more than 40 years old, the lack of information available online should not be a killer criterion. The documentation consisted of nice papercover books in A4 format, IIRC, and should still be available from national libraries. VSPC is history worth remembering. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage can be found in old Computerworld, Computer Weekly, and Datamation magazines: [1] [2] [3] [4] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Helpful Raccoon’s good work. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems historically notable. Sources may be harder to get due to age of topic. Ramos1990 (talk)

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.