Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliMouse

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliMouse

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the best-selling line of mice and the standard by which Microsoft sets the standard for mice for the rest of the industry. No real reason for deletion presented. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Early popular of scroll wheel and optical, can find sources to meet WP:GNG MadCow257 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As far as mice go, this one is pretty famous. Popularized the scroll wheel. —Ruud 11:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, as a mouse that showed innovative developments in their history. However the encyclopedic history of mice is (IMHO) best explained through a merge of the Intellimouse history into the general coverage of mice. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep just clicked on the news search link and hit the jackpot. Does anyone screen these AfD's? --Kvng (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:~~Delete or merge~~ because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't multi-!vote. Also we may assume that editors are familiar with policy and don't need it to be copy&pasted here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (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.