Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/32-bit disk access

32-bit disk access

[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)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Nom's only contributions have only been deletion votes or creations with zero contribs in article space (likely not their first new account rodeo) and the subject has two sources to pass GNG. Nom also advances no argument beyond a WP cite, so they could be asking for deletion because someone cut them off in traffic and we wouldn't really know. Nathannah • 📮 18:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to be objective and express any concern about deleting the article, and not about other editors. 85.48.187.219 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is subject to scrutiny for why and how they brought a deletion and is allowed to be questioned for their rationale if they're purposefully vague and do not have an edit in mainspace. And I'm going to give you a friendly reminder that we look dimly on sockpuppetry. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this account and IPs are the same user that has been discussed here. It's likely a dynamic IP who doesn't log in for some reason except when nominating at WP:AFD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are not valid references to demonstrate notability. 84.78.243.9 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, the nominator and other commenters do matter. For instance, we have a guideline WP:POINT. It certainly doesn't make it better that not only one, but three unknown people show up, the two IPs being from the same European capital city. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a bit obscure and the article does a poor job of putting it in context. That being said there is some good information here. Probably merge into Windows 3.1 would be a reasonable outcome. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No cases has been made why the sources listed (even if not included as references) as insufficient. Cortador (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several books cited in a newly added 'Further reading' section (not by me) indicate significant coverage in secondary sources. Looking at Google Books, I can confirm that 32-bit disk access is covered at length in these books. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]