Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netgear DG834 (series)

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. causa sui (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netgear DG834 (series)[edit]

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

And:

Delete. WP is not a product catalogue. From the Netgear DG834 article: "White case with a white removable antenna..." - so what! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Netgear routers are (sufficiently) WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Fits the category perfectly fine and is very similar to any other randomly selected articles in the Category. Has Cites. "White case with a white removable antenna..." is a editing issue, not an AFD issue. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Exit2DOS2000; Netgear routers are particularly notable because of the open-source operating system and the ongoing community work on improving, or even replacing, it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep (but merge individual models into series) --but not because of their intrinsic excellence , but because of the many sources available reviewing them. It probably would be possible to actually find reviews for most individual models, but the treatment by series is none the less preferable. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Product reviews are routine coverage, and don't go toward demonstrating notability. Assertion of sources is not the same as providing sources. No hits in google news, nothing in google scholar, one hit in books but "No preview available" so we can't just assume this is a signifigant mention. None of the sources currently in the article are "reliable" in the wikipedia term of art that would allow them to demonstrate notability. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again:

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

--Hm2k (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Product reviews are routine coverage, and don't go toward demonstrating notability." That's your opinion, not supported by any guideline or policies. Read WP:ROUTINE carefully, it says nothing about reviews. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Presuming bad faith or extremely misguided nomination after the same editor nominated the overview article of Linksys routers for deletion. It's not worth my time to check if all these articles comply with WP:N when these are WP:IDONTLIKE and WP:JNN nominations. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2011 (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.