Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP Envy


 * 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   no consensus. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

HP Envy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

From the deleted PROD: No credible assertion of notability, just another laptop family. Eeekster (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated this for PROD. There is no claim in the article that this laptop has any particularly notable characteristics. The anon's rationale for removing the PROD was "contains valuable information" but Wikipedia is not a product support site or indiscriminate collection of information. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. One more non-notable laptop in a sea of non-notable laptops. Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This range of laptops easily passes the WP:GNG having been the subject of numerous third-party sources such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it has received critical commentary by professional reliable media. Diego Moya (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator I don't think product reviews in the commercial press are reliable, independent sources. More than once I've seen a big ad for only a few pages away from some hack's hard-hitting critical review of . Magazine reviews are basically advertising. But I continue to learn about the standards of notability here; it's harder to get into Wikipedia for a rock band than for J. Random Consumer Product, it seems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The review from Wired which is cited above contains numerous negative points and so the suggestion that it is just advertising is a tendentious falsehood. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.