Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meizu M8


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Meizu M8

 * – (View AfD)

Based on the following web search: the subject of this article appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and consequently doesn't comply with notability guideline. In addition, according to WP:NOT (2.8), this article has no place in Wikipedia. It has somehow lasted five months as an article of speculation. --Penalty Killah Jw21 06:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this product has generated quite a lot of publicity (or notoriety) as a fairly competitive iPhone clone. Óðinn (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - what, no significant coverage? I've been reading about it for over an year.  I'd agree with putting that tag saying it needs to cite sources, but no notability?  That's laughable.  Also, the crystal ball argument is moot, because the notability of this thing is not so much about the product, but its development and hype, especially being build and marketed so blatantly as a clone.  The episode with the German police apprehending demo prototypes, for example, was all over the news. --LaloMartins (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is so notable, then why was the nominator unable to find reliable sources?=- Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Differing ideas on what constitutes reliable sources? Just on the first 2 pages of the google search he linked, I see 2 articles on it at Gizmodo, two more at engadget, yet another at Wired , and it has also been mentioned in Popular Science , all of which strike me as reliable sources regarding tech. Sure, info on it is kinda speculative (It's an unreleased product, what do you expect?), but I think there's plenty of notability and enough sources to justify an article, so I say KEEP.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be quite false in that the links demonstrate ample sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I don't see the argument not to keep it, it's certainly noatable. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:30, 11 December 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.