Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabra

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 of the discussion was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabra

Article sitting in wikify bin since March 2006 about a company that gets 10 or so commercial hits on Google but is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia -- a poorly written article (probably copied from company PR) about a technology company that is not a household name. No links in Wikipedia except to User pages. KarenAnn 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Googling for Jabra EarPHONE returns many hits. Needs cleanup and linking from appropriate articles, but it seems above the bar for notability. -- dcclark (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I am familiar with this company without doing any research. If my memory serves me they produced the first bluetooth headset for cell phones, or at least one of the first successful ones. There was a brief period of time in which bluetooth headsets for cell phones were called "one of those wireless Jabra headsets" as they really caught the attention of the public for being like star trek-like communication devices. Now Jabra is just one player in a crowded market.--Nick Y. 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, Nick Y., but are we really going to clutter up Wikipedia with this sort of thing? Just my point of view, and I could be wrong, as I am not following companies in this area. A person in the discussion part of this article said the headset really wasn't that good. KarenAnn 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've never used a Bluetooth headset and I've heard of them. They were (are?) the dominant company in that market and their name approached becoming a generic term for a wireless cellphone headset. And I don't see how their product quality has any bearing on whether or not to keep the article. Dgies 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep and Cleanup. Article currently reads like an advertisement for the products, and without cleanup and citing sources of information fails WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:01, 9 July 2006 (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.