Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floppy disk

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. WP:SNOW. There isn't a snowball's chance of this being deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floppy disk

[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)

See this revision for how the article appeared until recently. Lacks significant WP:RS, scope of article is beyond that of what WP:COMMONNAME suggests given sources provided ("floppy disk" is almost universally defined as referring to 8", 5.25" and 3.5" disks; other formats were released, but none were as successful or commercially available as those three formats; this is backed up by significant WP:RS, see Encyclopedia Britannica for example). A former WP:FA, the concern during WP:FARC was overwhelmingly the lack of sources, and that was nearly twenty years ago. Has collected indiscriminate information over the years that is neither WP:DUE nor reliably sourced. Major editor of article is recalcitrant towards sourcing, referring to one editor attempting to place {{fact}} templates as "tag bombing" the article. There were 29 citation needed templates on this article for at least one year, possibly longer. This article is in desperate need of being rewritten. Discussion was attempted on the article talk page, but regular/recent editors were WP:CANVASSed to the page which derailed it. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT and start over, no objection to simply blanking it to a short stub so the history can remain as there may be some sources worth salvaging. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DINC and the article is not nearly in poor enough state to deserve WP:TNT. There is currently a dispute over article content in which you are involved. WP:POINT seems relevant here. Astaire (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Achieve with WP:COPYEDIT: This article is without question notable, however this is not the issue. The article has significant referencing and appears to be written to a sufficient standard. I think rather than a WP:TNT as OP suggests, copyediting would achieve the same desired result. The ongoing dispute as mentioned by @Astaire is definitely a concern. Regardless, I agree with WP:POINT. I am aware we are not meant to discuss specific individuals on AfDs, so in terms of the article itself, I don't believe deletion is necessary. In fact I would strongly oppose to such a decision in this case. 11WB (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the point made by the OP: scope of article is beyond that of what WP:COMMONNAME suggests given sources provided ("floppy disk" is almost universally defined as referring to 8", 5.25" and 3.5" disks, perhaps the article could be moved to 'Floppy disk drive' as a hypernym for those size standards. Individual articles for different sizes isn't necessary under WP:BADFORK. 11WB (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to TNT every article with uncited content we might as well delete the whole website. Keep. Obviously notable, ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 72 references on the article, which is expected given that floppy disk drives were once used like USB flash drives are today. Without going through all 72 references, I cannot comment on whether all are reliable sources. I am in agreement with you either way. 11WB (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the problem is, it can and should be dealt with through regular copyediting, not deletion. For that matter, there are only 2 "citation needed" templates in the article right now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – nothing fundamentally wrong with the article. --Zac67 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Absolutely ridiculous to delete. Deleting an article is not an appropriate response to a WP:COMMONNAME dispute. I don't agree with the principle of WP:TNT, but regardless of my thoughts on it, this falls outside of its scope. As for "tag bombing", while the numerous "citation needed" tags weren't technically wrong, they certainly weren't the right course of action. They were mostly in one section of the article, so a section tag for the under-sourced section would have been more appropriate. Putting all of that aside, AfDs are not the place for content disputes on such obviously encyclopedic topics. No valid reason for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON is given in the nomination. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What makes this AfD harder to justify is that this was opened during an ongoing talk page dispute. The OP claimed another editor canvassed. I did see a message near the bottom where 9 other editors were pinged. Only 4 of these editors are in Xtools Top 10 of page authorship currently. Unfortunately, I believe canvassing may have indeed been attempted in part on that talk page as one of the editors did respond with support. However, starting this AfD as a response to that may actually violate WP:FORUMSHOP. This is a bit messy. Either way, I agree that the article should definitely NOT be deleted as a result of this dispute. 11WB (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware this specific AfD is not the place to continue this discussion on policy violations, so the information is there if anybody feels it necessary to highlight this somewhere this can be discussed (and preferably resolved). 11WB (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2025 (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.