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 per WP:HEY, near-unanimity of respondents. Non-admin closure by the skomorokh 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Written by an an associate who interviewed the founder with the express purpose of getting material for a Wikipedia article. While the company may have had a couple of niche products, no in depth third-party sources to pass WP:Corp. The footnotes are completely unreliable as a blog and a personal web page of a fan.

Related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Adams (inventor)

Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to utter lack of any kind of reliable sources to verify notability to the standards required by WP:ORG, oh and it's WP:OR - which is all a long-winded way of saying "per nom"  :) Nancy ^talk 17:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom's concerns have been addressed. Author's interests are irrelevent as it is now wiki's. Company was crucial to advancement in technologies that increased user friendliness of pre-IBM / pre-Bill Gates home computers. Some of the sources being questioned are technical forums are not blogs... not at all the same thing. Further, the article is well sourced to articles and reviews in magazines archived from that era... magazines which easily pass WP:RS as being widely respected experts in their field. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable. This article was a pleasent find. Glad the AfD brought it to me attention. Back in 1986 I myself bought drive enhancement software and hardware from this company to speed up the the information transfer on my old Atari floppy drives. 22 years later the hardware and software still function. Yes, I still have my old Atari 800... with 4 drives that had been "Happied", a pile of old 5-1/4 inch floppys for the drives... and it all stills works as well as when new. There were a number of computer magazines on the store shelves back then... covering Atari, Commodore, early Apples, etc... and the product was well reviewed. I will do a search to see if any have been archived someplace. This company existed at a turbulent time in home computer history as the in-fighting was beginning for the public's comuter dollar. I recall being at a gaming convention in 1982 or 83 where a Happy Computer representitive pitted an enhanced Atari 800 against an Apple 2e... and actually held its own for data transfer, if not graphics. The history is out there somewhere, and this little bit of computer history would be a welcome addition to Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• with respects to the nom, it must be noted that an online techincal forum is not the same as a blog. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: In terms of establishing WP:Notability an online techincal forum absolutely is in the same - unacceptable - category as a blog. This is policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources and stop making assertions like this that contravene policy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment directed at ME In terms on notability, please do not accuse me of violating WP:POLICY when I properly use WP:GUIDELINE... specifically the guideline you shared at WP:SPS from which I may now quote "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". In that the technical forum archives being referred to predate wikipedia by almost 2 decades and were of a time in the web when "established experts on the topic of the article" exchanged informations in an online forum. However, in further addressing your blanket assertion that all technical forums are blogs and as such cannot be used (this in contravention to the guideline you youself referenced above), I will put this question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. They may feel as you do that a 1980's techincial forum is as unreliable as a 21st century blog. In that case, WP:SPS will have to be changed to remove the sentence I quoted. ALL THAT ASIDE, the archived era magazines being sourced are enough to overwhelmingly establish notability. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Antic Magazine external links will serve well for citing and sourcing, as for their time, and for that subject, they are extremely reliable sources (remember.. sources must be considered in context to what is being asserted). You won't find a write-up in the New York Post, but will in those sources whose writers were at that time expert in the field and whose opinions were well respected at thattime and for that field. I will use such, and what other sources I find, to source the article. This article improves wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: The references (old print magazines, now reproduced on the web) seem okay to me. The only debatable issue is whether the company merits an article, because the reference are mostly about the products; but the article is mainly about the products. There are some WP:OR-like claims towards the end of the article, but most of it is supported by sources. VG ☎ 20:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And more coming... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I still have an Atari 800 too - happy days indeed. The company was evidently notable and the nomination fails WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nostalgia of Atari owners shouldn't influence passing WP:Corp. WP:BITE has nothing to do with the company's WP:Notability. You should know this by now. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I would think you could assume good faith in my statement above that it was the name of the company and its support of the early home computers that caught my attention. Sure, I bought and actually still own an Atari, but since I was a reader of those magazines at the times when they were new, that might give me a bit of perspective when discusssing the reliability of these 20+ year-old archived sources... and I again stress that sources called "blogs" were in this case nothing of the kind. I myself am assuming good faith that this is not a case of WP:UGH. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stop stressing incorrect knowledge of policy - see correction note above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? I have pointed out (See correction of the correction note above) that it is not I who is showing incorrect knowledge, as proper use of WP:GUIDELINE is not incorrect knowledge of WP:POLICY, and I will disregard the slightly bitey comments made toward me, my "nostalgia", and my reasons for keep, and continue to assume good faith that the tenacity with which you wish this article deleted is not WP:UGH. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable based on the encyclopedic value of its contents. Also for a technology topic the sources are adequate. The nomination not only fails WP:BITE, but also the Administrator who made this AFD nomination may have retaliated against Colonel Warden. (At any rate the admin who made this AFD nomination did make a suspiciously-timed and completely false claim against Colonel Warden; see here [1]). So much for WP:AGF with this AFD. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (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.