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. John254 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple II Graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Reads like an essay, no references, too much detail on an obscure topic. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The version I read was referenced, to several issues of a fairly well known magazine from Back In the Day. They may have been added in the interim. (I remember when we used to have to whittle our own microchips out of wood.) Obscurity is not grounds for deletion, even if this is "obscure". The prose may need editing; again, no reason to delete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smerdis.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article could certainly use a lot of work, and it's probably more detail than most people want. But it does provide sources and it does appear appropriate as a subarticle to Apple II. -Verdatum (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs more sourcing but definitely a viable topic, of interest in the history of computing. 23skidoo (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most people who use computers today would hardly consider the Apple II system an "obscure topic". JuJube (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I meant all the details on the graphics modes was obscure. The Apple II is very prominent and I never intended to imply that it was otherwise. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I might be wrong here- it doesn't seem to me that there is a policy against too high a level of detail; if the subject is deemed to be notable, detail isn't limited, except by WP:UNDUE, etc. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs work (it is fairly confusing about what it calls "interlacing" for example), but the workings of the Apple II graphics were written about extensively in the day in books and magazines. It is an obscure topic, but that's no bar to WP:N (and it is kind of fascinating in its own way, in terms of how the solution to various technical problems so differed from most other computers). Kingdon (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Apple II graphics most certainly received coverage in Apple-related magazines of the era. I'm not sure if I've tossed them, but I did subscribe to many of those dead tree volumes. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.