Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio F-105W


 * 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 delete. Mkdw talk 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Casio F-105W

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page should at most be merged with Casio F-91W as the F-105W is just a newer variant of that model. The content of this article is no more than specifications and a user manual, with no indication of notability. There is no need to keep this article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What about the historical fact that this model existed? I am particularly fond of the F-105W and think that it should stay or be mentioned on the F-91W page.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willoc (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is already a list of variants of the F-91W on its page, but the F-105W is not mentioned there. I think it probably belongs here instead of its own page. This also falls under WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also regarding what Willoc mentioned the historical fact that the watch exists (a claim no one is disputing) is not enough for an article, it needs to pass WP:N which calls for multiple instances of non trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:ITEXISTS may also be a good thing to look up.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable, no sources, effectively, just an advert. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage to base an article upon. HighInBC 23:55, 31 December 2015 (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.