Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SheevaPlug


 * 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. L Faraone  01:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

SheevaPlug

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable product. The reliable sources (most of them tech show promo blurbs) do not mention this product. They mention other products, which this article claims are based on the sheevaplug, but there are no sources actually verifying that. Even if they are based on sheeva, notability is not inherited, and it is those actual products which could be notable, not this one. Vast majority of sources are unreliable self published primary sources from the developers (and it seems of the linux developers really, not the plug developers) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say the SheevaPlug is actually notable, but the article is just pretty crappy. The commercial product section should be mostly stripped, replaced with something to say these commercial products exist. Maybe something similar for the OS section too. There were a load of these things sold, with them being one of the first replacements for things like the NSLU2 after they went EOL. Reedy (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources show that notability? The closest thing I can find is a single slashgear article. Everything else is random blogs or primary sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is a tough one. Certainly seems notable but I've found basically nothing in the way of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. A Google Books search came up with some quick mentions and a book with several pages on how to dump the device's memory for digital forensics purposes, which shows it hasn't totally escaped notice but can't actually source anything in the article.  I'm undecided but unless more sources show up it's looking like a merge to Plug computer might be the best choice.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:10, 24 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, Stifle (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Here are two reliable sources that establish notability:, . ~KvnG 05:33, 5 August 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) 03:06, 12 August 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.