Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech G5


 * 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. Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Logitech G5
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

no assertion of notability Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Logitech 'G' series, although I think the argument could be made to round up to a larger category. Regardless, this has no notability TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, obviously. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per Travellingcari RogueNinja talk  19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two reviews (uncited) currently at the bottom of the article. By pure chance I discovered another whilst browsing a site. I wasn't actually looking, I was just aware of this AFD. Has anyone actually looked for sources? Someoneanother 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No, evidently not. please make sure there aren't stacks of sources available from google by typing -"whatever it is" review- before listing something at AFD. Those came from the first 30 hits, there were more that could be acceptable among those and doubtless others further back. Multiple sources, at the very least some of those pass as reliable, many are very in-depth - it passes notability, easily. Someoneanother 03:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment all appear to be user posted content and therefore not reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ETAEven if a small handful of the sources *might* pass WP:RS, which is still questionable, Wikipedia is not a product directory. Merge it to the class of articles and discuss it there.


 * Are you sure? CNet's editor's review is exactly that. Trusted Reviews' piece is penned by the editor in chief of the site. Tech Spot's review does look like a submission, but is editted by the chief editor, IE editorial responsbility is placed on him - it's a 10 year old site. Extreme Tech's piece is written by a staff member, the site is a sister to PC Magazine. Someoneanother 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Cleanup - there are sources out there establishing it as a reviewed and well recieved product, but the article needs an overhaul to reflect that instead of just being a spec sheet. In particular, cNet and TrustedReviews have praised the device. It should be possible to cleanup the article citing these reliable sources. Gazimoff (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the links above show that the article at least has a feasible chance of being fixed. It can be merged with something else if the subject is thus covered better, but that is an editing matter. The usual request for the nominator to check the state of matters before acting on it: the deletion process can only work as a collaborative one, which in turn means that we are all on the same side and must not split into prosecution and defense. --Kiz o r  21:06, 15 March 2008 (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.