Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben NanoNote

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben NanoNote[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the notability requirements for companies, individual products should not have their own pages unless they are notable in their own right, or adding them to the page of the company's wiki entry would be impossible. This product does not meet either of those criteria and the article does not assert any claim to notability. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge. The argument above does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON), but does qualify for a merge with Qi hardware (See WP:ATD-M). Milkymist would also be a candidate for merging into Qi hardware. On reflection, I agree with xanchester below. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DEL-REASON - "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" and according to WP:COMPANY - WP:COMPANY#Products_and_services)"If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion." I don't really think that the company itself is notable, and if it were a full merge is not in order (I would think simply listing this product with a reference to a few of the articles or technical specifications would be appropriate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage by secondary sources: Engadget [1], PC Magazine [2], Linux Magazine [3], Linux.com [4], and The Register [5]. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find more coverage at [6] and at slashdot. Despite its name, slashdot is an RS for core technology news, and so are the publications previously mentioned. Churn and change (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good coverage by secondary sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I took the liberty of cleaning up the intro and adding a "Reception" section. It still needs some work but it's better now. There's clearly a lot of third-party sources out there on this. Faustus37 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per perfectly adequate secondary sourcing, and with particular props to Faustus' work cleaning things up. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through some of the coverage found, I agree, it clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.