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 to HP 2100. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HP 2000[edit]

HP 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete not WP:Notable. LES 953 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The family of computers is certainly notable but seems to be the same as HP 2100. Borock (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that an argument for deletion rather than merger, say? Warden (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding the material correctly the proper name of the series seems to be HP 2100. Borock (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The HP2000 series was a best-selling line of computers with revenues of over $100M when that was worth something. See The HP phenomenon. Warden (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with HP 2100 --DeVerm (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Obvious merge: How this could be considered not notable is lost to me, but had as much time been spent reading the article as spent writing this nom, the overlap with HP2100 should have been obvious. Suggest SNOW close. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to HP2000HP 2100. There's not material here to actually merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to HP 2100 since HP2000 already goes to HP 2000. Perhaps delete first, since it is not clear the information here is accurate. http://hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=411 at least seems to impy the "2000" was the time-sharing system, which was built around the 2100 minicomputer itself. And BASIC hardly made them unique, see RSTS/E for eample that had a popular BASIC environment. It certainly was historic, but a merged article on the hardware and software (with sources) would make more sense. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• merge -- without deleting the history--we cannot delete the history for a merge because we need to msintain attribution. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree if there is no content to merge. Why? I suppose it might be quicker, so probably minor point. W Nowicki (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (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.