Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford Typewriter

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. Though something from the 19th century, it seems to have received good enough coverage. The arguments for merging the content are reasonable but considering the facts about this typewriter and the presence of sources online, I lean on giving it some time to breath. The article certainly has potential and an expert in the subject may be able to expand it. The topic is certainly notable and some time in the mainspace can't hurt. If someone feels that it should be merged now or after giving it some time, it can always be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 04:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Typewriter[edit]

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

Not sourced nor notable. JDDJS (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article's not being sourced is, unless it's a BLP, not a reason for deletion. Sources need only exist, they do not have to be in the article (although they should be, and I have added too). As for notability, a quick Google shows that this was the first typewriter to be made using aluminum, which provides a potential claim to notability - it also does (as mentioned in the article, which is about the only thing it does mention) have a potential claim for high-current-value. Since typewriters are hardly my speciality I'll leave it to others to determine which of the additional potential sources that were turned up through that search may be reliable enough to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking probably merge with Typewriter. It seems to me that there is good media coverage that this thing exists, that it is rare and valuable. But I also read that it is an unusual design and was a commercial failure. So... well, I'm not sure if I'm really persuading myself either way. I'd like to see a page with more information about it, but I'm not entirely convinced the information exists. At the moment, merging with a page about the history of typewriters seems the best thing to do. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an interesting and reliably sourced model with distinctive features. Sources include Antique Typewriters, 'extremely rare' at auction, Collectors Weekly, IBM on Eugene A. Ford and his typewriter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep they were a thing, in their day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be linked from typewriter. Perhaps someone who knows how typewriters work could do that?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Typewriter There is not much here, and so far as I can see it is not capable of much expansion. More appropriate where it will be read at Typewriter. As to its independent notability, I do not think that much more can be found. Reviews of typewriters in the 1890s are likely to be in the kind of ephemera that are not preserved. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Typewriter is 70K already. I've mentioned it on Typewriter and linked from there to the Ford article. Difficulty in finding references is not a reason for deletion; university and historic society libraries are likely places to hunt. It is not a requirement of Wikipedia that references be easy to find. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not Keep, then merge with redirect given that it is a valid search term. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bushranger. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2015 (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.