Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number Nine Visual Technology

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 04:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number Nine Visual Technology

A defunct weblink and a link back to the page List of defunct graphics chips and card companies, which manages to have more info on this defunct company than its own page. Even if the page was stunning is a Graphics Card Vendor that went under worth a page? I say delete Sabine's Sunbird 07:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of defunct graphics chips and card companies. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it instead. Wyss 03:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Number Nine was fairly notable in its day, which spanned two decades. It was founded circa 1982, before the personal computer revolution, and lasted until about... 2003? I think it's worth a redirect, though I don't feel strongly about it. But I'm not sure why you think it should be deleted. Number Nine is to computers as Studebaker is to automobiles: not a giant of the industry, but a very familiar and respected name for quite some time. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Real company; redirect - David Gerard 18:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. They had some good technology: I wrote drivers for this about 20 years ago, it was one of the better ones. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.