Talk:IBM 3624

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IBM 3624. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion for lack of notability[edit]

@Iridescent: Regarding your removal of my PROD tag, I did state which policy I believe this article to violate: notability. So I'm not sure what you mean by, "...no valid reason for deletion provided." – voidxor 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to answer for Iridescent, but contradicting your assertion Individual models of automatic teller machine (ATM) are not notable, there do exist notable ATMs, e.g., Tillie the All-Time Teller. So each ATM article needs to be considered individually for notability. --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say "notability" and leave it at that, since if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is by definition notable in Wikipedia terms. If you want something deleted, you need to specify why you believe the article is either on a topic which will never be appropriate for coverage, or demonstrate that the article is so poor that it can't be salvaged in its current state. WP:PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions; if you can't or won't demonstrate a reason for deletion, then by definition it's not uncontroversial.

"Other examples don't have stand-alone articles" is not a valid argument, if the sources exist to create a stand-alone article; every topic on Wikipedia—other than music, Ancient Greece and logicians, the subjects of the original nine articles at our launch—has at some point had one article which was the first of its class. (As late as 2008, people were arguing that individual paintings didn't warrant their own articles, for instance; we now have thousands of articles on paintings.) ‑ Iridescent 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent and Mark viking: Good points, both of you. Thank you for the clarification. I just wish that Iridescent had originally explained that my notability argument was flawed, rather than asserting that I had failed to name a relevant policy. Might have saved some fuss. Anyway, it's water under the bridge now. Happy new year! – voidxor 23:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]