Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult of Mac

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. Sean William @ 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult of Mac

Cult of Mac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is about three things, a blog, a book and the group of people. There are no sources for notability on the blog. The book does not meet any of the criteria for book notability. As for the group of people, that might be valid, but this article is almost entirely about the book and the blog. i ^said 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but some improvement necessary. The book actually does meet the first criteria as it has been the subject of multiple-other published works. Like [1] and [2]. For the rest, it might be appropriate to link elsewhere, but that's a cleanup issue. FrozenPurpleCube 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Apple Inc.#Users, which this appears to have been split off from. If the book is found to meet our book notability criteria, keep but refactor into an article on the book, rather than on the three distinct things mashed together into one article like there is now. --Krimpet 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article as I started it was actually very different from what it has become today :). That said, the sub culture which today forms an integral part of the computer and technology industry remains very relevant. This was more than aptly illustrated by the iPhone, a gadget hyped beyond anything seen before - and the masses loved it. I agree that a rewrite is in order though. As far as I can see, the book and blog deserve passing mentions only. The focus would best be a piece which cites the loyal user base and their incredible appetite for anything Cupertino releases. Thats my $0.02. Of course, I'd be willing to help out. vIkSiT 05:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but edit so that this is clearly and strictly an article about the book. wikipediatrix 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Where are the multiple non-trivial sources? I must have missed them. Burntsauce 17:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Krimpet. --Aarktica 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube Harlowraman 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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.