Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JVC GZ-MG555


 * 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. v/r - TP 22:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

JVC GZ-MG555

 * – ( View AfD View log )

*Delete The only references are from the manufacturer. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * entered comment on wrong discussion. careless. sorry Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG, routine coverage only. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, widely reviewed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It depends on what you condider "routine coverage". I can see Stuartyeates' point, but I think that the sources are quite detailed and go beyond telling us that the product exists. The machine seems to be notable in its field.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This article shows promise to educate this product to readers because I am not familiar with this product. Maybe I'm not meant to discuss articles for deletion very much: in fact, I want to be educated very well.  Maybe I should not use Wikipedia as substitutes for anything, such as online store or official website of the brand.  To be taught by the insipid-written article like this is something that I don't want to be: an insipid-skilled writer whose articles will be nominated for deletion, even with references, notability, or external links.  Originally, I goal for delete for the current state and the current amount of awareness of this product; unfortunately, I have been scolded by an administrator because he has his points on me.  Why does this article exist?  To teach me?  To entertain me?  To be nominated for deletion?  I don't know why: I'm driving myself mad.  Why can't I decide my vote?  Why?   --Gh87 (talk) 05:17, 23 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.