Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UE 900


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (soliloquize)  @ 10:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

UE 900

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 17:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dmatteng (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Ultimate Ears While there is coverage on this product, Wikipedia is not a product guide, and that's all this article is. WP:PRODUCT at least advises this outcome. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:PRODUCT the product might have its own entry as it demonstrated sufficient notability on its own. The article was submitted to an independent experienced editor in order to be reviewed and ensure that it complies with the WP guidelines prior to posting to the main space.Dmatteng (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD is similar to AfD that was just closed as keep. Multiple reviews satisfies GNG.Dmatteng (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing with other articles/AfD's is useless. The Banner talk 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot reply to the nominator as per Dennis Brown we have to avoid each other. However, it was noted that he nominated 3 of my articles to AfD and the community voted to keep two of them, with this one pending. Dmatteng (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Honestly now, look at that large Reception section! The product has been reviewed by a slew of reliable sources.  It doesn't look like an advertisement to me.   D r e a m Focus  19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Any corporation or product can be framed as "advertising" but one needs to make a case for it by explaining why the sources used in this article are non-neutral. Keep per WP:GNG. -- Green  C  20:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable product. If there's a promotional issue, fix it or tag it, don't delete it. ~KvnG 22:49, 11 September 2014 (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.