Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVO Smart Console

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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EVO Smart Console

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

Notability is not established. No sources in article pertain to the "EVO Smart Console" or "Evo: Phase One". All sources in the article concern the merged content from the deleted Evo 2 article, and consist of press releases and primary sources, the same issues brought up in Evo 2 AFD. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple RSes covering the topic in detail (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). Passes GNG. And it's appropriate to take into account the EVO 2 sources because as you noted, the topics are merged. If there's too much info on the EVO 2 then perhaps consider a request for rename to EVO Consoles? -Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The EVO 2 sources were brought up in the EVO 2 AFD as simply being product announcements. Is the fact that a product announced sufficient for notability? All of these articles seem to deal simply with the announcement, preorder, etc. I searched specifically for "EVO Smart Console" and that's probably why I didn't find many relevant hits. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dismissing EVO 2 sources because they're press releases and primary sources is fine. I'm just saying that the fact that they are EVO 2 sources instead of EVO 1 sources shouldn't be a factor here since they were merged. For what it's worth, I agree that several of those sources don't meet WP:RS. -Thibbs (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're correct, and I didn't mean to imply that EVO 2 vs EVO 1 sources was the issue. Simply that the source IN the article happened to be those from the EVO 2 merge, and the issues brought up the EVO 2 AFD about those same sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was able to locate a few secondary sources after spending some time with Google, including a review published in the Anniston Star and another review published in Maximum PC. I also discovered that Thunderbolt also published a review of the EVO 2, but it's debatable whether that qualifies as a WP:RS. It seems rather odd to me though that a game console would receive such a minimal amount of media coverage. For anyone doing additional searches on the topic, take note that some media reports described the product as the "Evo Console" or even the "Evo Game Console." --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2013 (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.