Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huawei Mate S


 * 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. Definitely trending towards "keep," but the reiteration of their views by the "delete" !voters make this a no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Huawei Mate S

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references and no text. No credible claim of significance, which would require text and/or references. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete
 * Somewhat surprised upon double checking myself that A3 doesn't apply to pages with only infoboxes.
 * Misses A7 on thin procedural grounds.
 * Note to closing admin, new user has, by my count, created eight similar articles, some of which have some content, but others which are similarly only infoboxes.
 * This includes Huawei Mate, CSDd by User:RHaworth as A1, although I do feel like A1 is a stretch if one knows that Huawei is a phone and consumer electronics manufacturer.
 * Timothy Joseph Wood 15:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only coverage in sources is by blogs who make money by advertising the products, publishing press releases, and affiliate advertising.- MrX 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, as described above.  If someone wanted to start an article about the series at Huawei Mate, maybe a merge could be done.  Peacock (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Comfortably passes WP:GNG. See source examples below. The article has some text at this time. Perhaps the article lacks content because it was nominated for deletion 58 minutes after it was created, or maybe not, but this can be easily expanded. North America1000 10:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * International Business Times
 * The Irish Times
 * The Journal
 * The National
 * Mashable
 * ZDnet
 * CNet
 * Stuff.co.nz
 * PC Magazine
 * Rte
 * Newstalk 106-108

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Northamerica1000's sources provided. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources provided by NA1K. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's still a fast, beautiful, solidly built and feature-packed Android phone.


 * I'm sorry but I'm sticking with delete. I looked through the first half of the sources, and they're all just product review opinion pieces. If you take out everything that would be completely promotional in an article (like the above), there's really nothing left to say in an article besides product specifications. Considering that this and the slew of other similar product catalog stubs were created by an obvious COI account, apparently purposefully to circumvent our CSD criteria, it seems that where this is heading is the creation of dozens or scores of stubs on every product this company has ever put out.


 * At the end of the day, having lots of sources doesn't mean much when basically nothing in those sources is usable on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there's no current indication that this or any of the similar subject are of any enduring encyclopedic value. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the sources and standing on delete as well. Virtually every electronic device produced in the past 15-20 years has been reviewed by CNET and their ilk. Many of these publisher receive advertising revenue from the companies who manufacture the products. Several of the sources listed above are actually the same publisher (CBS Interactive). These are not really independent sources, and the coverage is rote and routine (see WP:ORGIND). I doubt that this article would pas the 10 year test.- MrX 00:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Northamerica1000 in the case they have a counterargument, since all the keep !votes seem to rest on them. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Dozens of sources available on line in addition to those cited above. Certainly seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage. Very new article - there are articles on every IPhone and Samsung Galaxy - this article should have a chance to develop as well.  CBS 527 Talk 18:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The phone has enough press coverage for the article to be improved and meet Wikipedia standards Daylen (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2017 (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.