Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British computers

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The result was withdrawn by nom. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of British computers

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

Arbitrary cross-categorization (why British computers? is there something special about them?), failing WP:NOTFAQ point 9. Not sure it has any particular notability; might be better off as a category. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have Category:British computers and so, per WP:CLN, a list is valid too. The topic is quite notable as Britain has been a significant pioneer in computing and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Early British computers. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be arbitrary cross-categorization when this is not a category? At any rate, keep per Category:British computers and WP:CLN, as noted above. The wording of the nomination statement gives one the impression that the editor was not aware that a category existed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems to be worthy of WP:LISTN. Presently it is presented as a stand alone list which could be expanded to something more encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially that all items of the list have articles on notable-enough computers. PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good historical reasons to have such lists. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:55, 26 March 2017 (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.