- 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 Casio 9860 series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Casio fx-991ES ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ (conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ (conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect This is less keep-worthy than Casio 9860 series but more keep-worthy than the Casio interfaces, so it was harder to make a decision here. What won me over was that this article links to Casio_V.P.A.M._calculators. Much but not all of the information is already repeated there. The "feature list" of Casio fx-991ES is meaningless as it's typical for any calculator these days. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products. How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. -- do ncr am 00:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 8 February 2016 (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.
- 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 Casio 9860 series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Casio fx-991ES ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ (conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ (conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect This is less keep-worthy than Casio 9860 series but more keep-worthy than the Casio interfaces, so it was harder to make a decision here. What won me over was that this article links to Casio_V.P.A.M._calculators. Much but not all of the information is already repeated there. The "feature list" of Casio fx-991ES is meaningless as it's typical for any calculator these days. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products. How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. -- do ncr am 00:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 8 February 2016 (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.