Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macintosh Input Method

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 redirect to Input method. The content is all there in the page history if anybody wants to carry out a merge of the article's two lines of prose. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh Input Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence that the article meets the general notability guideline. The article has been here for more than 10 years in much the same state (little more than a dictionary definition of the term), and although there is no deadline, one can infer from this that there might not be a whole lot more to say about this topic. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the idea has come and gone without much to say about it. W Nowicki (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an invalid delete argument: if the subject was notable when created then it is still notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are no independent sources certainly *IS* a valid argument. If it was not notable when it came out and is still not, does not meet our guidelines, right? That is what we are trying to determine. W Nowicki (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Input method, no evidence it is worthy of a separate article, but since we do have a relevant article, its better to merge + redirect than outright delete. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:28, 23 January 2017 (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.