Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replica 1

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 based on addition of enough reliable sources to show notability. RL0919 (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replica 1

[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)

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is

I do not think that the sources currently in this article demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to turn up anything better. The sources currently in the article consist of a link to an apple 1 owners club website which seems to be partially written by the person who made the kit, The website of the company that makes the kit, the website of the assembly language programming environment that runs on the kit, and the store that currently sells the kit. I think that the best potential source in the article is the Computerworld piece currently listed as an external link, But I am unconvinced that a pictorial build guide is the kind of coverage we would be looking for when writing an article, and it's a dead link - the images are no longer available. A search turns up a few passing mentions in articles to the effect of "The original apple 1 is so expensive that people are making replicas now", but no substantial coverage. 192.76.8.91 (talk)

Reyk _YO! 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly written article about a piece of tech that does not clearly show its notability. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion, article restored and discussion relisted as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the book in the "Further Reading" section, it does mention the "Replica I" throughout the book, in the context of using its circuit board to create a replica of the Apple I. The issue is that these mentions, while extensive, do not focus on the replica, but on the creation of a replica, which leaves me slightly conflicted as to whether this contributes to GNG or not. The rest of the sources, however, aren't useful, and a search turns up nothing - as such, I feel relatively safe !voting delete. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Apple I#Clones and replicas looks like an ideal redirect target as the article subject is already mentioned there with references. Redirects are cheap and the artcle subject is of borderline (at best) notability anyway. Pavlor (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I browsed sources in the article: computerworld looks fine, I don´t have access to the two books and can´t judge that thesis (?) by Oskar Andrzej Stepien. The rest of references is user generated or primary content. I give benefit of doubt and think the article subject just about passes GNG. Pavlor (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Apple I#Clones and replicas which is the obvious target. Reyk _YO! 09:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: RS/SIGCOV present over a wide date range as evidenced by Owad's 2005 book, Gagnes 2009 review, and Tranter's 2018 review. The nomination is completed invalidated by the current version of the article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's quite notable and well-sourced. Artem.G (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on provided sources it is notable. Alice Jason (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2021 (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.