Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aigo MID


 * 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, with no prejudice to a Merge if consensus is formed. Black Kite 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigo MID

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article reads like advertisement.  Lourie Pieterse  14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete; or Merge to aigo In English, I can only find, , and , none of which seem significant coverage. There does appear to be a good number of foreign articles, which I can't evaluate. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge: The agio article only mentions this under 'See also' and the only other link to it would not be missed. If the product is notable, which it doesn't appear to be, then start with a section in the aigo page and make a new page when there gets to be enough detail.--RDBury (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Merge per Cunard's new links the subject seems to have attracted attention in the Chinese media. (Nice job finding those links btw.)--RDBury (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This product passes WP:N per this article (see Google Translate) and this article (see Google Translate). However, I would not object to a merge to agio aigo, since this article doesn't contain too much content to warrant a separate page. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the Chinese sources cited, I have a strong suspicion that they are (1) press releases; (2) advertisements; or (3) commissioned by the manufacturer. As such, they are not WP:RS for WP:N purposes. Tim Song (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though the sources appear to be press releases, I would recommend a merge/redirect to aigo as the best alternative to deletion. Thus, I have completed a merge to aigo, using the reliable English-language sources provided by Cybercobra. Cunard (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources found by Cybercobra, in conjunction with the sources found by DGG, prove that Aigo MID passes WP:N. This article should be kept, not merge/redirected. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. After reading the above comments I agree with a merge.  Lourie Pieterse  08:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Merge as put forth above, while poorly written still part of a notable item if properly folded. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently notable product with 3rd party reviews ,  -- these are full reviews, not PR, not notices, though in specialized sources. There seem to be many others, but in Chinese {http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Aigo+MID%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a]    DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding more sources. I agree that this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Chinese hits on the first few pages are definitely PR, though. But the new sources DGG found may be sufficient to justify an article - not quite sure about their reliability. Tim Song (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2009 (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.