Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iriver Story


 * 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   keep. For now, I can somehow see a consensus for keeping the article, there should be a specific notability guideline for computer devices, but as per WP:GNG, the article seems to pass it. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Iriver Story

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. If there is a more specific notability guideline for a computer device, I couldn't find it. Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This e-book reader running Google software has been reviewed by reliable electronics publications such as PC Magazine, Ars Technica, PC World, Cnet, Engadget, Laptop Magazine and Gizmodo. Clearly, these reviews are sufficient to establish notability.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reviews, which aren't in the article, would only establish a "presumption" of notability. I've started a thread at WP:N/N about this issue. I'm actually far more interested in the global issue of notability of computer hardware and software than whether this particular article is kept or deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence that the topic satisfies WP:GNG. Note that reviews don't count towards notability if they are just recycled press releases (which, sadly, many are these days). Such reviews are not independant of the subject. To judge whether this is the case people need to read the reviews, which are currently not discussed or even mentioned anywhere in the article. The article would be much improved by the addition of a "Reception" section discussing any independant reviews. HairyWombat 17:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment HairyWombat may be right about some electronics reviews, but as that editor stated, people need to read the reviews to determine whether they are independent or just "recycled press releases". I have actually read the reviews, and the majority are clearly independent since they criticize the device in ways that no paid press release writer ever would.  As HairyWombat suggested, I have added a "Reception" section to the article with brief quotes from five independent reviews demonstrating notability and neutral coverage of this device.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reviews now listed in the article are not recycled press releases. For example, CNET has an Editor review, ad well as user reviews.  User reviews don't establish notability, but an editor review does, and the CNET review for the iRevier Story is just that -- an editor review. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (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.