Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerEdge

PowerEdge

I prod'ed this, with this text: "Non-notable product line, as they're not inherently innovative. Enumerating all the models in the line might be an interesting article, but even the collection of specifications does not make an encyclopedic article." Another editor removed the prod and made a comment requesiting the topic be kept at Talk:PowerEdge, so that brings us to a formal AfD.

I'm on the delete side, and vary from "why the heck is this here?!" to not thinking the article does any harm -- but I never find myself having a desire to keep this article. It is in poor shape now, but I also don't think that it can be improved to provide an interesting article at all. There's no argument that the line of servers is popular, but they're not innovative and are just repackaged products that someone else invented, designed, and implemented. Anything discussing the business model behind them probably belongs at the Dell Inc. article, and a catalog of the line and its configurations isn't interesting. -- Mikeblas 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't intend to argue whether the products are inovative, since I don't know enough about their architecture. I also do not dispute that this article needs work. But I would say that the PowerEdge servers are very notable. They have won many numerous industry awards, and google tests return millions of pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.matthews (talk • contribs)

• Keep - not being innovative is not a criterion for deletion. The Dell series of servers has received industry coverage such as this article which took me almost no time at all to find. I'd say it meets WP:CORP as a notable product. -- Whpq 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The referenced article is not about PowerEdge servers in general. It's also not completely about a specifc PowerEdge server; it's a press release recap mentioning some announcements from a two or three different companies. While the article has "PowerEdge" in its text, and discsusses one change to one model at one time, it provides zero depth. This specific article doesn't help PowerEdge meet WP:CORP because it is just a press release rehash. I think that articles truly about the line of servers (as this topic in the pedia aims to be), which aren't reviews or PR slpashes, are going be few and far between. -- Mikeblas 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - as above. There is evidence that this line of products has enough significance to warrent an entry. Greg Birdsall 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Will you be writing up that evidence for the article? -- Mikeblas 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. Greg Birdsall 17:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. We have NeXTstation, SPARCstation, SunFire, System/360, Programmed Data Processor, Apple II series, ENIAC, and I'm sure countless more. I'm always a little suspicious of articles documenting current commercial products, but this will one day be a notable historical commercial product, and as long as the article isn't spammy, there's no reason to wait. William Pietri 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The other prodcucts were the first to do something very interesting; first optical drive, first hardware VM system, and so on. The PowerEdge servers are just servers. -- Mikeblas 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. For anyone who needs to see the light at the end of the tunnel, take a look at the Dell Optiplex page. The Optiplex page is not an absolute complete list, but details the vast majority of models that are of any useful relevance today. Think about the time you waste looking through documentation eleswhere when you could find it in an organized fashion, providing instant comparison to all other models. The page needs the content improved, but that is not a justafiable reason to delete it. Individuals in the IT field who actually have a positive attitude and familiarity with Dell business-grade computer equipment should be welcomed to share their expertise and make information easier to understand. Is the reason that we seek encyclopedic content not other than that we are in persuit of knowledge? 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.209.141 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't see much explanation at the Optiplex page. It looks to me, much like the PowerEdge page, to be an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Mikeblas 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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.