Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola Moto X


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Motorola Moto X

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article that posits possible new smartphone that may or may not appear. Seems to be an advertising article. Single reference is broken. Seems to fail WP:ORG scope_creep 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - It has been officially acknowledged as early as last May by none other than Motorola's CEO and an ad was just revealed today. Why would you mention WP:CORP if just about every smartphone and certainly every flagship has an article on Wikipedia? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep there's a full page ad that should be in "several major U.S. newspapers" tomorrow. I would say that tips the scale towards "may" rather than "may not appear."-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep a little crystalballish, but seems legit. The one reference is definitely real.  Now that we have it, let's keep it. -- Y not? 18:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant tech journalism coverage is inescapable from a simple search engine test with nearly a dozen reports from The Verge alone. Clearly passes GNG. I don't think anyone would have barked if (per the WP:ORG rationale → WP:PRODUCT) the article was instead redirected summary-style until suitably expanded, but there is more than enough for several paragraphs within the aforementioned sources I've read just now. czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems pointless to delete this, when it will have to be created again in a few weeks time when we get more information. Onco p53 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There was a big story by the WSJ today which I added to the article. The original argument for deletion is no longer valid.--199.88.143.1 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2013 (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.