Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS-5600 Systems


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Avaya ERS-5600 Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete . Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note – The above information is part of the nomination for deletion, and is not an !vote. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above not a !vote and Alan Liefting is a retired account. - Geek2003 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are three ELs to IT trade journals that would seem to indicate notability by the classic route of significant mention in 3rd party publications. Why are you discounting them? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

• Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Added history section and references for notability. - Geek2003 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTDIR. The product's introduction itself is hardly notable, and none of these secondary sources go beyond its introduction and announcement. There are thousands of hardware models which receive cursory, descriptive published coverage when they're launched. WP:GNG establishes a presumption, not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. While these lists of features and press releases satisfy WP:V, that's not enough: this is not a catalog or directory. Some products like Cisco PIX or Nortel Meridian lend themselves to encyclopedic coverage because they're technically or historically important. Has anything interesting actually been said about this series of stackable switches which goes beyond simple description or press-release content? If not, it belongs in a list. – Pnm (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Several articles and equipment reviews are now listed. - Geek2003 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Very Weak Keep – Per reviews and coverage in computer-related sources:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note those sources are in a single, short news cycle. – Pnm (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note those sources are in a single, short news cycle. – Pnm (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note those sources are in a single, short news cycle. – Pnm (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep google/yahoo searches establish have several reports for notability, agree more ref and expansion/ improvement is required. MLD7865 Auto (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Major additions and citations have been added to this article. - Geek2003 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets coverage, is a real thing, and the article has ample valid information to sustain itself as a separate article, no need to merge it anywhere.  D r e a m Focus  14:55, 3 January 2012 (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.