Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sciphone


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sciphone

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unpatrolled since 19 September 2010. This appears to be a spam  posting  for Chinese copies of genuine products. Doubtful encyclopedic value. Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some articles on these products are spam, however the article is not written as an advert in this case. This is actually a very common phone in the UK (London at least).  Therefore, just like other manufacturers, it has a place on Wikipedia. (see the PearC nomination for deletion) --AnonyLog (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Google News archive search linked in the nomination finds plenty of coverage, such as, , and , and the article is not written in a promotional way. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The gut reaction is that a counterfeit shouldn't be notable, but this one is, since it's so commonplace. Both Engadget and Gizmodo have featured it, along with minor mentions in tons of other media outlets.--hkr Laozi speak  07:52, 25 October 2010 (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.