Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott 803

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was keep with nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Someguy1221 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott 803

close this AFD - nomination withdrawn

Elliott 803 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

AFD withdrawn by nominator - no longer a copyvio of http://www.sli-institute.ac.uk/~bob/elliott803.htm, and notability shown by the responses I got here. -- Guroadrunner 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Technically a copyvio as the article was "reproduced with permission". However, this computer also may not be notable even if the article was rewritten. Guroadrunner 08:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Not notable? Not notable??? I wrote my first programmes on one of these back in the 1960s! Seriously though, it was a major landmark in the history of British computing -- some 250 were delivered, and most universitites and colleges had one -- and the associated Algol compiler byTony Hoare, in which he implemented his new Quicksort is rightly regarded as a classic.
Comment - is it possible that you could help rewrite the article so it is not a direct copy of another web site? I'll consider removing the AFD if some help is given. Guroadrunner 10:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course it's notable. Without early computers like this wikipedia would be built via carrier pigeon. Nick mallory 10:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Computer history is notable. Albeit article needs a lot of work, including fixing the little issue of Copyvio Rackabello 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability of the Elliott 803 is beyond doubt. Surely an alternative approach to a rewrite would be to obtain whatever permission is required to allow this article to stand. Perhaps Guroadrunner could advise one what needs to be done to permit this. Thanks --TraceyR 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have now rewritten the entry. Richard Pinch 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nick mallory. OysterGuitarst 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RichardPinch's rewrite. -- GURoadrunner (original nominator)
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.