Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVO 2


 * 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   redirect. As is standard practice, arguments with a strong basis in Wikipedia policy are given greater weight. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the article history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

EVO 2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The product in question does not meet GNG. The GNG notice has been in place for months, the article consists of primary sources or press releases (6 of 9 sources cited), one joystiq article, and an article in the anniston star (local paper). If it were simply vaporware, I'd be interested in inclusion and to have the article marked as such, but the issue is there is little reason at this juncture to even have the article exist. Kai445 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - There are sources out there, but they're all like this IGN article -- all they do is announce the product, and talk about it's premise. Considering the lack of coverage beyond it's announcement, and the fact that it is continually delayed, with most follow-up info being from the company's website itself, makes me think it should be deleted, or merged/redirected to the original EVO Smart Console article for now. Sergecross73   msg me   04:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to redirect/merge if there is no consensus for deletion. -Kai445 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and the fact that it is continually delayed? Just because it's being delayed does not mean it has to be deleted. Delaying of a product does not cause anything for its respective wiki article! --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is, in it's current shape, I don't believe it's currently notable, and the more it gets delayed without explanation or future dates, the more likely I feel that it won't be released, and if it's never released, then I don't see it ever getting future coverage to help it meet the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly has enough sources to support the info. Also has two images and a logo, a detailed infobox, and otherwise a detailed article. Should be kept. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whether or not it has images or an infobox has no bearing on whether or not it meets the WP:GNG. The sources at the article are largely first party (doesn't count toward notability standards), not exactly reliable, or don't cover much beyond it's initial announcement. To call it "detailed" is a stretch as well, the article is largely tech specs ripped from the official website or countless delays or "absence of news" type updates observed by editors. (Empty statements like The EVO 2 was supposed to be featured at E3 2012 in June, as stated on their site, however it did not appear there.) Sergecross73   msg me   19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Gaming & Computing is the article creator. -Kai445 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions . — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, I think there are plenty of reliable sources out there as this shows. The console is fairly notable; meets WP:N. It even has more sources than the "original evo console" as Sergecross73 pointed out, and that isn't showing up at an AfD... Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the only thing I really said about the original EVO was that it would be a good merge/redirect target... Sergecross73   msg me   01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That Ghit is mostly non-envizions-related. Millions of results based on mostly irrelevant results being displayed. EVO 2 is a guitar pickup, 4x4 EVO 2, HTC EVO 2... I mean, of the first Google page, only four out of the first eighteen results is actually relevant, of which the Wiki entry is one. -Kai445 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral:Here I am just scrolling trough VG article and I found this,well anyway It proves to be stable,12 sources an a website is good,I have seen articles with less, that haven't been deleted or merged,although those might seem like the right choice right now,I have no intentions of a search for another source as Kai states above is almost the same I found with Yahoo unless "http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/25/evo-2-console-promises-to-bring-android-gaming-to-your-tv-this-f/" counts.74.178.177.115 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a useable source, but it's just like the one's I brought up before, where all it really is, is a short article outlining it's premise, sourced by a press release. Because every source is like this, is why I think a merge could be a good choice; there's so little of substance to be said about this topic. The rest of your comment I can't really respond to, as I can't really understand what you're getting at with all those typos and run-on thoughts, but I feel like it may fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an invalid reasoning for keeping at article... Sergecross73   msg me   15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it could fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.74.178.177.115 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you acknowledging you gave a mostly invalid reason for keeping the article? Sergecross73   msg me   16:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No I was agreeing,Other than finding more source on the last page of searching,like I said,Yeah it could fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.74.178.177.115 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, when you say that your own argument falls under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that's basically discrediting your own argument. If you're trying to argue a point, that's not an argument you want to make... Sergecross73   msg me   20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'M NOT TRYING TO START ANYTHING,I'm agreeing to disagreeing,but yeah I guess I'm discrediting my own argument,but It seems to be a nice article and I wouldn't care if it were deleted or merged :/.74.178.177.115 (talk)
 * I didn't think you were trying to "start anything", I was just confirming that you knew what you were saying. (It's not very often someone makes an invalid argument, and then admits that they're self-aware in making an invalid argument, without arguing the point further.) Thank you for clarifying, now the closing admin can see that your !vote is more of a "neutral" than anything. Sergecross73   msg me   20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample refrences and an article which is more than a stub only. Whoever is in gaming will find this article useful. CamillePontalec (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Four of twelve references are from the product homepage. Two are press releases from press release sites (prlog/eworldwire). The gizmag and digitaltrends references are essentially blog entries that restate the press release from 2011. The only reliable sources are perhaps from The Anniston Star and Joystiq, but the articles are over a year and a half old, and aside from being the same, generic types of press release material, do not do anything to further the notability of the wikipedia article. -Kai445 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: The account CamillePontalec appears to be a single purpose account, having never made any contributions before this. -Kai445 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid argument either. Sergecross73   msg me   03:31, 9 October 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.