Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PocketDish

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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PocketDish

PocketDish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article about an appliance was tagged for speedy deletion, but fits no WP:CSD. It appears, however, not to be notable. Sandstein 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Sandstein 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, product has plenty written about it by independant sources, see: [1] [2] [3] hateless 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the amount of material written about it is irrelevant, it's not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Nardman1 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question rationale for delete Actually, the amount of material written about it by independent reliable sources is the criterion for determining whether the article is notable. Why do you think it's not worthy of being an encyclopedia entry? I wrote it and I still think it should be kept. Jaysbro 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Poking around a bit I found Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It_is_unencyclopedic Simply stating it's not worthy of WP, without stating why, is not an argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaysbro (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Rather I'd say the amount of material written about it is the central thing. It does look to me like there are enough decent, independent sources to write more than a stub, although I'm not familiar with portable media players. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, no valid criteria for deletion given. —siroχo 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Unencyclopaedic article which is borderline spam, but which describes a product which I believe is widely available. Ohconfucius 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Ohconfucius, can you explain to me why the article is borderline spam and why you believe it to be unencyclopedic? Jaysbro 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, It's a commercial for an item manufactured and sold by Dish Network. Even the source, an external link is just a commercial. Heaven help Wikipedia if they allow things like this to stay. Soapy 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand why when people put up articles explaining what something is that is manufactured by some company, it seems like there is immediately this committee that jumps up and yells "Too Commercial! Abuse of Wikipedia!" I say if this serves to explain this device and this can be linked in another article, then it should stay. I am often annoyed when I'm surfing Wikipedia and reading about an organization or company and they mention some product and I'm like "What the heck is that?" and then I see a dead link on Wiki and nothing on Google because the company got rid of the product page ages ago. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia become an archive of abandoned product, I'm just saying sometimes its nice to have a little additional explanation. Let's not forget the concept of Eventualism, that perhaps at some point this article could become more fleshed out and valid.--Arkcana 02:13, 27 January 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.