Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac OS X86

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 MERGE to Mac OS X. TigerShark 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X86

Unofficial neologism, not common enough to warrant an article or redirect. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Although Mac OS X86 is a small group it exist nonetheless and it deserves at least an article stating it --Drchoc007 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How is this any different from Windoze, really? Both are neologisms (WP:NEO), neither are acknowledge by the products' creators, and yet both have found use on in the interweb. There is no information here that could not be comfortably relocated to Mac OS X or a similar page, so this, like Windoze, deserves - at best - to become a redirect. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Initially looked notable from 69,600 ghits, but is actually only 489. Moreover, it seems to be pretty hard to verify. Also, we should probably merge some of the important information to Mac OS (probably under Mac OS#Emulation): i.e., that it can be hacked to run on windows, which is stated at Wired News, a reliable enough source, I think. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Mac deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep provisionally. Maybe I don't understand the argument here. This seems like a real phenomenon (for want of a better word). There are people using this and reading and writing about it. It might be okay merged with Mac OS, but shouldn't the information appear somewhere? This article is badly written, but could be improved I imagine. Rbraunwa 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I said in my comment above here, there's nothing here that couldn't easily be placed on Mac OS X or a similar page. I move that this page either be deleted as an unnecessary neologism, per WP:NOT, or redirected per Windoze to Mac OS X or a similar page (while the information in the article itself should be placed elsewhere, most likely at the page to which it would redirect the reader.) RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that it needs extreme improvment in style, syntax, references, etc., but speaking as an expert in the field, this topic is completely different than any mentioned that could include it. It could be expanded to include the history of the marketing decisions made, the impact on Intel, the problems that it caused compared and contrasted to the benefits it provided. Basically it is a completely different computer platform of its own. Another article already exists and is well referenced. There isn't anything to merge that is referenced. To avoid any POV fork, etc., if the other article can be improved, then there isn't any reason not to simply do so. I am changing my vote to Delete. Ste4k 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename if necessary. Bacchiad 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Mac OS X. That article needs a section specifically on the Intel builds, and really, there isn't much substance on this X86 page at all. hateless 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. This is not worth an independent article; the three or four sentences the topic merits could quite adequately be covered in Mac OS X. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haeleth (talk • contribs).
• Merge: I hate mac's, but merge this to where it should go. Hacking OS's or a Mac OS article. Zos 19:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: I made this article believing that there wasn´t an article about Mac OS X86, but I recently found out that there is a stub that is called OSx86 and I think i should merge this with OSx86 --Dr. Choc 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: This should be merged into OSx86, with a redirect pointing to that page. PaleAqua 13:18, 20 July 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.