Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pace Twin PVR (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  Maxim (talk)  14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pace Twin PVR (2nd nomination)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I came across this page from a forum posting. The article subject is not notable and any mention of being the first Freeview PVR could be mentioned in the Pace Micro Technology and/or Freeview articles, which are notable. There is no verification of any information and a Google search mostly finds forums and pages which sell the PVR amongs a few interviews. There is not enough information to prove notability or give this set-top-box its own article. There are more noteworthy set-top-boxes which still wouldn't pass the notability criteria.

Besides these concerns, the article is also written as a instruction manual and a frequently asked question guide. Any good faith attempt to edit the article to make it anywhere near worthy for Wikipedia ends up with the article being reverted and classed as vandalism.

Regardless, there are more noteworthy set-top-boxes which wouldn't pass notability. --tgheretford (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of sources whatsoever leads me to beleive that this may be an advertisement or completely made up.--DerRichter (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, it's a real (if obsolete) product - plenty of GHits and I know enough people who worked on it! It's been out of the marketplace for a long time though. Not a very good article though, and NN status (obsolete PVR product?) is definitely open to question. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - real thing, notable in the lives of many thousands, utterly pointless nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. RogueNinja talk  19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is important and simply needs expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampackgregory (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.Avalon (talk) 12:11, 13 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.