Talk:List of computer system manufacturers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Systems science Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science.
Systems rating:	List Class	Low importance	Field: Systems
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Is there a "List of Food Companies" out there somewhere, too?

I'm occasionally tempted to add companies to this list, but it then seems like I'd be contributing to a task about as worthwhile and achievable as removing all the dark grains of sand from a beach.

Is there a belief that this list could ever be comprehensive and up-to-date? I just did a quick Google for "computer manufacturers consortium" and picked one fairly obscure site that listed 450 members. That's only one site. This page currently lists 21 companies.

Some edits removed companies without wikipedia entries. If the goal is to only list computer manufacturers with wikipedia pages, wouldn't this be better handled by a category instead of an article?--NapoliRoma 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and again: what is the purpose of this page?

I just reverted a redlink purge, since if a criterion for inclusion in this list is that there be an associated Wikipedia article, this page could just as easily be replaced by a category. As I noted on the rv comment, "redlink" does not equal "non-notable".

The reason to leave redlinks in place is to act as a stimulus to get associated pages going. If you kill redlinks on sight, you lose this stimulus. There are several companies (Egenera comes to mind) that definitely are notable to my mind (not that I'm rushing to create an article, but...:-)

A reason given for the purge was to avoid the list becoming "full of spam." It's supposed to be a list of manufacturers -- under what circumstance would the inclusion of another manufacturer to the list be considered spam? It's presumably why the list exists in the first place.--NapoliRoma 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks as such is no indication of notability, but according to WP:LISTS, all content must be verifiable, also including lists. Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say[1], and as such, many of the entries should be removed, as they only consist of a redlink and an external link. Also, according to the notability policy, section 4, clearly states that list articles, though, should include only notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers. As I interpret this, only entries already having articles should be included, otherwise the entries have to assert the notability by itself, which is also why I removed the redlinks. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My first thought was that any computer system manufacturer is going to qualify as "notable" enough to be on this list (it's a little harder to claim to be a manufacturer than to claim to be a writer), but upon reflection I realized it's true there could be two guys, a garage and a website, which might not necessarily qualify as notable (yet -- rumor has it two guys and a garage can sometimes wind up building a notable computer company).

I still would expect a computer manufacturer to be notable until proven not -- but maybe there should be a threshold of a minimum revenue for at least one year? (There are some companies on the list that currently have zero revenue, but are still of note).

My current thought then is that it makes sense to cull the list, but only selectively, and I would recommend commenting those out rather than removing them entirely, to reduce the likelihood that someone would unknowingly reinstate them at a later time:

<!-- NOT NOTABLE * [[Sirius Cybernetics Company]] [http://plasticpals.com] ->

--NapoliRoma 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is one option, but as the list guidelines state that all lists should have some sort of inclusion criteria, I would suggest that we create one. Revenue is one option, but I think I personally would go for the general criteria; A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other. This should exclude all minor manufacturers, while keeping two guys working in a garage, as well as notable manufacturers in general. As for entries without existing articles here on Wikipedia, a source should be provided to prove that the entry is notable. Commenting out the entries like you have suggested is also a good idea, at least as long as the list doesn't get too overpopulated with non-notable entries. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any response on my last post, I'm going to add a inclusion criteria stating that only notable entries are to be added; and that all entries either need to have an existing Wikipedia article, or a source that indicates notability according to WP:CORP. Entries not notable will be commented out as NapoliRoma showed earlier. I'll give any interested parties time to comment on this, so I won't touch it for a few days. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Entries not notable will be commented out?--NapoliRoma 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot this when I removed a bulk of the entries. Commented out the last two after seing this however. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)