Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCR 5xxx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge and redirect to NCR Corporation. Dreadstar † 17:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NCR 5xxx

NCR 5xxx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

To me, the product series described here seems non-notable; the article is entirely unsourced. PROD was contested with comment: "seems notability, there are almost certainly references". I'm not so optimistic in that respect. Automated teller machines are not really consumer hardware, they're not typically subject in the main stream media, and substantial coverage about the series or individual models seems unlikely to me. Using Google, I found a number of vendors' sites, but these do not confer notability. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep [1] is an academic thesis on one of the models. [2] is a peer-reviewed article about these machines in general; as this was a major machine in the period covered, it's probably included, especially since google brings it up in a search for the model number, though I have not read the article. I wouldnt oppose a suitable merge into a broader range of products. DGG (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I can't access the second link, but for the first one, I do not think that the topic of the thesis is one of those models. The thesis describes ATM deployment strategies in general. Where does it even mention NCR? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect → NCR Corporation#Automated Teller Machines and tag with Template:R with possibilities, the template tag noting that the topic has the potential for expansion given proper reliable source support. I think that there are references out there that would support verifiability of a portion of the information in the article as it stands, but neither of the links provided by DGG satisfies this; the former does not seem to mention the model (based on searches of the text) and the latter may mention, but I can't verify that myself (the working URL for the latter is http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114073129/ABSTRACT). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into NCR Does not seem to have any notability on it's own, google search/news yield nothing .  Atyndall93 | talk  08:25, 22 April 2008 (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.