Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus keyboard (2nd nomination)

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 keep. John254 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optimus keyboard

Optimus keyboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Little more than catalogue page for product. Lack of reliable independent nontrivial sources, and only claim to fame is being slashdoted.

• Delete. Fancy features do not a notable product make. I'm sure when it comes out, it should get enough reviews to make it noteworthy, but until then...Someguy1221 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting product that uses new technology of large potential benefit. It is definately in production. The information comes the manufacturer's website (doesn't get much more reliable than that). This hasn't just been hyped up on slashdot - plenty of otehr sites have discussed it. This AfD does not give any new grounds for deletion that weren't mentioned in the first one. (Also, fancy features *do* make a product notable... otherwise it just blends in with the competiion) Tompw (talk) (review) 11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Manufacturer's website is not necessarily reliable, as they have the most incentive to lie (except perhaps their direct competitors). But it fails the "independent" bit, in any event. Anyway, this isn't being AFD'd from concern that it doesn't exist, but from concern that it hasn't received enough attention to be considered notable. Nearly the entire last AFD discussion was completely irrelevent to this concern, and was conducted as an actual vote, which this is not. Someguy1221 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I've seen it covered on Slashdot and Engadget, but I'm not sure if we consider those reliable sources. :) Psu256 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's been Gizmodified on Gizmodo also, though it's production dates have been pushed back enough times that I'm wondering if it is WP:CRYSTAL until it is actually sold. The article certainly could use other primary press/web references, though I can't search and add them now. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me / Logical Entries} 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep- there is no reason to delete this page, it is notable, and intresting, it has some content. Alphablast 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's an interesting product, and is highly anticipated among the tech community (have a look at the Digg story). Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - has been covered widely in the trade press, see [1] -- The Anome 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it catches on, then someone can write an article. Right now it's still in the pre-release hype stage. Mangoe 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - covered a great deal in the press. Needs to have an article, even if it becomes vaporware. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As mentioned above, this is a well known highly anticipated product. CheekyMonkey 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - High coverage in press, even though its on the verge of vaporware -- pb30<c.t> 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Changing my opinion to keep in light of the sources. Someguy1221 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If there is sufficient non-trivial coverage from multiple sources, as there is in the case of this article, then WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. Yamaguchi先生 07:24, 28 May 2007 (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.