Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BaoFeng UV-5R (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 Don't delete. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no consensus found as between keep and merge. Clearly, deletion is not the outcome, so we do not need to carry on this discussion further. If editors wish to consider merging, they can discuss on Talk:BaoFeng UV-5R or just do it. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

BaoFeng UV-5R
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Our policies discourage making pages that are highly specific on products that are not exceptionally notable. This product doesn't seem to have a sufficient significant coverage with a sufficient audience base. It looks to be sources are highly focused to specific niche audience.WP:GNG WP:PRODUCT. The page is extremely specific and narrowly focused, sources are not what we'd call large audience reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT. non-notable generic radio transceiver.  scope_creep Talk  16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Graywalls, it has only been a few weeks since it was last at Afd. I would suggest informing everybody who took part in the Afd as per policy.  scope_creep Talk  16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did notify the significant contributor/creator to the article. Graywalls (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are a relatively new editor and scope_creep has nearly a decade and a half of experience on WP. I recommend you take their sensible advice. -- 18:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To those who participated in BaoFeng UV-5R AfD. I am notifying all who participated as I was requested by antoher editor Graywalls (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: First, it does not make sense to propose it again less than two weeks after the previous (relisted!) AfD was closed. To summarize the previous discussion: three sources pass the requirements for significance, reliability and in-dependency. Also, it does not fail WP:Product per "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.". It is a notable transceiver radio that is sold widely and is mentioned in multiple articles of community projects on for example Hackaday. This particular model has thousands of reviews just on Amazon for a single listing, it has been sold through different channels (especially Chinese web shops). This model is also the base of a lot of other transceivers under different brands. Also, it is notable on the Slovak WP where it has been published for few years. This model democratized the field of amateur radio by being very low-priced compared to everything that was available before. Also, the amateur radio community is already quite a niche. The sources are pretty good compared to the other articles in its own category. Initramfs (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Article creator, I didn't notice it listed the first time around. "Also, the amateur radio community is already quite a niche." that's a pretty good hint that it doesn't belong here. A product intended for and only of interest to a specific target would be a reason for failing the WP:AUD. Trivial coverage such as a person interviewed by the local media recommending the product does not contribute towards notability. WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NORG are relevant guidelines. The standards for notability are higher for organizations and products, because "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." to quote the guideline. KOHLER Sous Pro-Style faucet has 1,500 reviews just on Home Depot, but that sort of thing is not a supporting evidence of product notability. Hopefully this clarifies why I have nominated it for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "I didn't notice it listed the first time around.", Okay, that can happen! But I think WP itself is a collection of niches, most articles aren't that interesting for a large audience. Within the global radio amateur community, this is quite a notable device. It got significant in several articles on Hackaday, which is a reliable independent source. The device did significantly contributed to the growth of the amateur radio community in recent years. I know Reddit is not a RS, but as you can see, an entire community is built around this device: Initramfs (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What I did find is EVIDENCE OF WP:CANVASSING with the intentions of affecting the AfD result. Discovered thanks to the link you provided, what I did find are posts on three subreddits announcing of your previous AfD during the time AfD was taking place r/Baofeng, and r/HamRadio. The response I have seen at irked me. (comment updated) Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No,, I don't think you found canvassing. if you read what was actually written, init asked for WP:RS, not to enter this discussion. Unfortunately the recipients don't know about WP:N, but that's moot as init has accepted a compromise. I'd say more strike-throughs are in order here, coz we should WP:AGF (and this was for the last AfD anyway). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The last AfD was closed less than two weeks ago, do we really need to do this again? - ZLEA T\C 13:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize at the time it had been nominated not long ago. I didn't notice the article when it was going through the first AfD. I do see that nutshell essay encourages waiting two months. I'll keep that in mind going forward, but this shouldn't be a reason to summarily speedy keep. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Even thought the last close was no consensus keep. WP:DELAFD My comments have not changed from two weeks ago. Passes WP:Product a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed in the 9 days between these two AfD discussions, so I will re-iterate my earlier recommendation: The ARRL, FCC and Hackaday sources are independent RS and there seems enough depth for WP:GNG and a modest article. In particular, the FCC is primary, but authoritative for their own sanction, and the sanction is about selling the UV-5R. I consider Hackaday a reliable source for maker/hacking topics--there is some editorial oversight, and their content is usually solid. Cheap and controversial, the UV-5R has had more impact than most transceivers. Reasonable people can disagree, but given my knowledge of the amateur radio field, the topic seems a modest keep. -- 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the FCC isn't a source that is applicable in establishing notability. They regularly produce press releases about who got busted, not unlike police departments releasing their pinch in press release. It is a reliable source of the fact it happened. Graywalls (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep My opinion hasn't changed since I last commented and it is way too soon for a second AfD. --mikeu talk 00:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Eh. Still clearly fails WP:PRODUCT (per what I said last time). Not sure why this has attracted special attention such that we're keeping something based on such poor coverage, but here we are... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per the arguments below. It's already covered on Wikipedia, so no point deleting. Content to defer to editors of that list page for what should be included there... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. There doesn't seem to be any change since last time, and I still maintain that the primary FCC doc does not mention this product by name, only the manufacturer. Hackaday being a 'community blog' project still worries me, although Mark Viking's assurances it is more reliable than others are reassuring. The last AfD was quite recent, but there was no consensus, so here we (shouldn't really) go again. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the FCC document, that is not true. It is mentioned 6 times. Initramfs (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * could you please point me to where in the 4 page FCC document, linked from our article, that states the product by name? The company is only mentioned once, in a footnote to "Violators may be subject to substantial monetary penalties.3", along with what appears to be 3 other example companies. My apologies, I probably should have noted something on the article itself, instead of the (last) AfD discussion only. Live and learn :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see what you mean, you're referring to the 6th source, I'm referring to the document that was linked from the 1st source, the ARRL. This document is 6 pages and mentions the device from page 2 and onward. I hope this clears the confusion :) Initramfs (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Something tells me we should link to that document from our article, not the other. Perhaps the article name should also be changed to "UV-5R series"? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm I do think it makes sense to keep referring to that document. Although it's not explicily mentioned that is is about the UV-5R, the document from the previous month only mentions radios from that series. I do agree with your second statement, but I think we should discuss that later if the page will be kept. Initramfs (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion I have no idea about amateur radio, but is there a page for the kind of radio this is, where we can merge this article as a section in that one? Or a page for the FCC decision? I guess it might be easier to get WP:RS for either of those two and maybe have a bigger page? As my biggest problem with this article is that it's one product (it would seem almost like wikipedia endorsing it) and I'm sure there are many other examples we could join together so we don't unduly focus on just this. any ideas? Other editors? Would that be more acceptable? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at Category:Amateur radio transceivers, there are some more amateur radio transceivers with their own page. They are all high end so they aren't candidates for a merge. I would argue this particular BaoFeng radio (series) is definitely notable due to its use in projects and the FCC controversy, other amateur radio transceivers didn't generate as much controversy as this one because they complied to the regulations. I disagree that it looks like Wikipedia is endorsing this radio, because it is mentioned very clearly the radio is not legal. Initramfs (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , having a look through those articles, I'd say they all have exactly the same problems as this (perhaps even less notable for most): no WP:SIGCOV, not really WP:NOTABLE, and some of those Yaesu articles are completely unsourced (when there are sources for many in this cat, they are blogs, forum posts, youtube vids. Not exactly WP:RS.) Also, most of them are really too detailed for a general information encyclopedia, I'm not wanting to beat on the amateur radio community, but there was a similar AfD for a list of AD&D 2e monsters. Probably interesting for the community, and definitely in a published book, but just so much unnecessary detail for the average reader (I'm not sure what happened, but it looked like deletion when I read through it). Would something similar to List of QRP Transceivers be possible? I'm unfamiliar with terminology and such, but that looks much more useful than several short WP:STUBS? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree. I created List of Amateur Radio Transceivers which currently only contains the UV-5R but I will try to add more radios later. The current BaoFeng UV-5R page can be made into a redirect, IMO. Initramfs (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . Perfect, compromise achieved! Striking through and changing my vote as well :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so nobody's feeling Baofeng is getting singled out, the contents at some of the Yaesu articles I have visited are not a role model of contents. I have cleared out things that really shouldn't be there in the ones I have visited. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , delete and merge into walkie-talkie or Two-way radio is possible option, so there can be a few sentences briefly saying there was this this importer who got cited by the FCC for the UV-5R fad. I am of the position this shouldn't have its own article, just as you wouldn't create an article on an individual citing a news paper article and a police press release saying so and so got a speeding ticket. Those are reliable sources of the events having happened, NOT that what happened is notable. FCC issues citations all the time for non-compliant products. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose merging into the generic articles about walkie-talkies because this radio transceiver is notable on its own, due to reasons explained earlier. A whole range of Yaesu radios are deemed notable with their own articles without mentions of projects and controversy, so that makes this the most notable radio listed on Wikipedia (apart from historical radios). Initramfs (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect I change my vote as the article author, I would like to make the article a redirect to List_of_Amateur_Radio_Transceivers Initramfs (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done that man, or women. It is really struggling to establish notability after this discussion. It is worth noting even Yaesu, though notable and in existence for more than sixty years is struggling to find good quality references. I suspect the field itself is not particularly notable nor replete with useful sources, which reflects badly on WP itself, if the article was left. I think the whole lot needs looked at. For example, it is worth examining Yaesu VX series. Originally all the VX kit were originally perseverate articles, then Afd and consensus was to merge them. There is more examples of that. I don't think there is any kind of page consensus outside this article. They are all merged, or will merge as a series in the future, as the consensus dictates. scope_creep Talk  14:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see you've already copied over the contents to the target you chose. Since the contents are already transferred over, I'd say delete and redirect would work out. Please strike-out whichever entry you're not using as to eliminate confusion. Simply wrap around the obsolete input around what you want to delete to strike out. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Initramfs (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , um you struck out in the wrong part. I meant you should strike out the obsolete vote/entry in this AfD discussion, so you're not double voting. Graywalls (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. I added the strike-trough to my previous opinion. Initramfs (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Negative on delete, it needs to stay as a merge. WP:CWW - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to List_of_Amateur_Radio_Transceivers as per above discussion (and many more articles of doubtful notability could get merged in, too). I believe this should be an acceptable outcome for all involved :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I think that ultimately the best thing may be to merge and redirect to List_of_Amateur_Radio_Transceivers if and only if much of the content here can be merged there. But I am not a fan of rerunning a WP process repeatedly until it gets the result the nominator wants, even when the repeat was done in good faith as it was here. Maybe there's someone out there dreaming up ways to save this article. Give them some time to do it. Vadder (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.