Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Macintosh models

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Macintosh models

[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)

Contested PROD. This article appears to be a good example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTFAQ, and WP:NOTCATALOGUE seem most relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as PRODder). My reasoning: I feel this article has failed in its purpose: it's both not hugely necessary and has failed in the task it was set up to do. Apple's product matrix, the top of this article, is covered well in the main Macintosh article. It means there's quite large dividing lines between its models (generally, people know if they want a Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro), and where there are overlaps this is generally much better covered by review websites that can do speed comparisons than by a fairly meaningless set of tables as here (hey, what's the difference between "Intel HD Graphics 515" and "Intel Iris Graphics 540"? Which one's better?). I feel the article would only be useful if it was embraced by the editing community as important and the subject of regular updates, but there seems no interest in it (e.g. nobody's taken out the references to the discontinued MacBook, or put in much about the iMac Pro), whereas the articles on individual product lines are regularly updated by interested contributors. I favour either deleting the article or merging/redirecting to Macintosh, which could or already does hold most of the content of this rather short article fairly easily in a place where it's more likely to get attention and regular updates. Blythwood (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that perhaps the article could use some attention. However, if we're determining the viability of a page based on its potential usage, then it should be noted that over 2,000 people monthly view this article. Further, the comparison problems that you are mentioning are certainly in need of expansion. IMO standards are a bit too strict here in terms of what deserves an article, but that's not my point. The point here is that this article is, in fact, quite valuable, if maintained. Perhaps further integrating it into the rest of Wikipedia would help. There's absolutely no reason Wikipedia shouldn't have comparison articles like this. SuperChris (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: None of the reasons this was listed for deletion are true. Comparing product models is not promotion. Having a table comparing models is not akin to being a manual or a dictionary. There is useful information here, and evidently is being used as pointed out by SuperChris. Sure it needs work, but I don't see why this should be outright deleted. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: *Keep; This article is NOT promotion. It would have no place on the official Apple website. JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC) *Merge. Although I do not see the subject matter as being worthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as a separate article, I see very little reason that the valuable information contained within it must disappear forever, if not none at all. As such, I consider a merge with Macintosh, or a similar article. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC) *Keep. This was the first article on Bing Search that I went to at the time that I was trying to decide which Mac to purchase. It helped me make the final verdict. I imagine that other people might face a similar dilemma to what I have experienced, so please keep this article! It is a more useful resource than one might expect. LizzyPiez (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (struck sock !voters} Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful memories and overview of product devleopment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a good article, very informative. Strongly keep! - Jay (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I'd like to see what reliable, secondary sources are making these types of comparisons. Because right now our page looks like a mirror of apple.com and I'm having trouble seeing its encyclopedic purpose. Not sure what's going on with List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type and List of Macintosh models by case type either, besides a heap of original research. I'd merge the three into a single list of Macintosh products with a simple comparison table for date of release and major features. The difference between each refresh of a product fits within the scope of each product's individual article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:19, 8 December 2019 (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.