Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Computer financial history

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 of the debate was Merge and redirect pschemp | talk 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Computer financial history

Article contents are completely non-notable. Tempshill 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Article can be expanded, there are a wealth of sources, and subject is very notable -M^ask 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your first two criteria aren't good reasons to keep an article. Better to delete this small hill of unnotable material and if someone later feels they can write a real encyclopedia article on the subject, they can start from scratch at that point. Tempshill 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You are incorrect. Please review WP:DP. The fact that it is a stub is not a valid criteria for deletion. -M^ask 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not a stub. It's just garbage. Have you read the article? Tempshill 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Claiming that the financial performance of a major corporation is not notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia may be the most appallingly ignorant comment I've come across in AfDs so far, and that's saying something. What, you think Jobs, Wozniak, Scully, et al were in this for their own entertainment? It's unfortunate that Wikipedia style calls for breaking subjects down into discrete pieces to keep page sizes low; but with that practice as a given, there ought to be articles like this (in terms of subject matter, not of this low quality) for all major business entities. I know that a task like this only diverts attention from the vital work of documenting each iteration of Bulbasaur, but it's a necessary evil. Monicasdude 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming that the financial performance of a major corporation is not notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia may be the most appallingly ignorant comment I've come across True. Of course, no one actually said that -- see Strawman argument -- so one wonders who you're trying to insult (again) or what your point is, other than your perennial bitter complaints that the Wrong Articles are being kept. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Response. Exactly what else could "Article contents are completely non-notable" mean, given that the article contents include discussions of the company's going public, its dividend history, its market capitalization, and an incomplete history of the stock's performance. Monicasdude 02:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph is not reflective of the article's content, except for the last 7 words you wrote. The data seems to be a few snapshots of data, not a historical perspective, and the snapshots have been taken from random points in time. The article is currently worse than useless, and instead of plaintively waiting for a savior to make an encyclopedia article out of this - which may be impossible - I argue the article ought to be deleted (or merged into History of Apple Computer, though any meaningful data is already there). Tempshill 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Financial information, in the context of an encyclopedia, that is utterly trivial and not worth a separate article. This is an encyclopedia, a digest of knowledge, not a repository for every jot and tittle of eye-glazing data. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with History of Apple Computer. The topic is encyclopedic in principle, and History of Apple Computer is long enough to justify a fork, but the financial history of a company is so tightly bound with other aspects of its history that I think it would make more sense to fork by time period if we want to fork. --Allen 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. What Allen said. Stev0 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Thirded. Notability of a subject which is a subcategory of a larger one with existing articles doesn't justify creating stubs for all the subcategories. Georgewilliamherbert 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Certainly notable content and per Allen above. — Wackymacs 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Allen. Thatcher131 19:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Moe ε 02:46, 1 April 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.