Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOTCATALOG The Dissident Aggressor 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article appears to compare difference versions of Texas Instruments graphing calculators. While I think the article was created with moral intentions and not created for commercial purposes, the article lists prices and only mention Texas Instruments products. Prices violate WP:NOTCATALOG and listing only Texas Instruments may suggest that Texas Instruments is the only corporation that makes good graphing calculators, which is an opinion. Furthermore, the lead appears to consist solely of original research. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing anything but complaints of fixable problems and a WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination. Obviously the prices could be removed if deemed unencyclopedic, and the scope could be expanded to include other manufacturers if editors decide not to compare the TI models separately (not that keeping this separate suggests in any way any particular opinion of TI calculators, an odd interpretation I think). In other words, I see no reasons given for deletion, just disagreement as to how this has been developed so far. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that each series of TI calculator has its own article (thus making this essentially an annotated list of article topics), and we also categorize them separately by manufacturer, in Category:Texas Instruments calculators, just as with Casio, HP, and Sharp. We also have Comparison of HP graphing calculators. So the idea that a TI-specific list represents some kind of POV bias towards TI is just silly. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research and Wikipedia is not a TI catalogue. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this topic OR? postdlf (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - TI has been making calculators since forever, and even with the prices this is a worthwhile list, as the models have individual articles as well. Ostrichyearning (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ostrichyearning, While I believe you have the best of intentions, perhaps you might want to brush up on our policies and guidelines before endeavoring further into AFD discussions. While your 185 edits are helpful, we have specific guidelines about what is and is not appropriate for inclusion. From what you wrote and the extreme brevity of your editing history, it does not appear that you are at all familiar with them and you have not addressed the concerns presented. The Dissident Aggressor 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's a pretty piece of ORIGINAL RESEARCH, smartly presented. Unfortunately, analysis of the relative merits and purchasing price of a CATALOGUE of a manufacturer's products isn't the business of Wikipedia. I do hope the author won't be too disappointed and will put his undoubted energies into improving any of the many articles which could benefit from this sort of editing skill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since TI has been making graphing calculators for so long, and since they have become an integral part of school curriculum, we should have an article on them. The article could be expanded to be a comparison of graphing calculators in general if that would make it more useful. I used this article today to evaluate the suitability of a different (older) TI calculator than the one taught in school for a particular student. The market does not provide such comparison information across the historical spectrum of products. If citations are needed to subdue the ORIGINAL RESEARCH claims, then we should add citations. The prices are of modest historical interest. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are missing the point that the encyclopedia is not meant to serve as a comparison website, of prices or otherwise: that's simply not its function. Please see WP:WPNOTCATALOG for a full explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. When I read WP:NOTCATALOG, I see no prohibition against this article because the occasional prices are not so important to me except as a metric for inflation vs. Moore's law. Should it stay? It looks a lot like ThinkPad T Series#Specifications, for example. I would consider that the information in this article might be included elsewhere, and I agree that it should be properly referenced, but I disagree that it should be deleted. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply citing NOTCATALOG is at best an incomplete argument, given that product comparison articles are sometimes kept at AFD. So you're going to have to be more specific than that. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be more explicit:

An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

The prices are of zero historical interest. The Dissident Aggressor 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite possible. What does that have to do with deletion? postdlf (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should stop arguing and read - this thread is a response to ke4roh's comments, not just an excuse to disagree with folks. You asked for more specificity in the responses to Ke4roh. I guess I wasted my time since you seem to have lost the context. But you're an administrator so you must be right. Moving on now. The Dissident Aggressor 22:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If thine price column offends thee, edit it out. Problem solved. That's a point I raised above a week ago, to which a rebuttal has not yet been offered notwithstanding more people complaining about the prices as if that were a reason for deleting the whole list. The context is WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do not delete articles for problems that can be fixed by editing. And we assume good faith, as you've been failing to do quite egregiously here judging from your comments and edit summaries. postdlf (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I get it - when someone says you're being argumentative, accuse them of something. Weak but probably often effective tactic coming from an admin. However, I'm not one to back down from bullies.
• The importance pricing was brought up by Ke4roh - I commented on what s/he asserted was its importance and cited policy to back it up not being important. You're the one who suggested removing the pricing. Nobody disagreed except Ke4roh.
• Again, you've failed to grasp the context of the discussion: When you raised the point, a week ago as you say, about the pricing and nobody offered a rebuttal, it's called tacit agreement. Why are you complaining about it? Are you that hungry for an argument? When nobody objects, WP:SOFIXIT. The Dissident Aggressor 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure if you've ever been to one of the TI calculators wikipedia pages but as an example TI-83_series. Its much too large and confusing and for some odd reason includes not only TI-83's, but TI-84's too (which would be like including the iPhone 6 on the iPhone 5 page). TI-84 Plus series is if possible worse, a list of infoboxes and some Reddit sourced crap. The TI series need to be broken into more articles and this is a great place to start. Sum in point List of iOS devices. Same sorta thing, just a different device. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:33, 17 February 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.