Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiovox Snapper (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovox Snapper

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable cell phone. I'd BLAR but it survived AfD 14 years ago, so I assume that would be controversial. On the topic of that AfD, it was claimed there was SIGCOV in these three sources: (all skunked now so you get the archived versions)

CNET: this is actually just a landing page for user reviews for the product, the "staff review" just refers you to their coverage for the show it debuted at. You can find that here, where it trivially mentions the phone. Not SIGCOV either.
Twice.com trivially mentions the phone at the end of this article, not SIGCOV
The link from accessmylibrary.com is dead. Apparently that's a Gale service, so I did my best to search Gale for the ostensible title of the article, but found no results. Also checked Gale for "Audiovox Snapper" in general and got zero hits. (Not even any trivial hits).

Folks, I think at the last AfD we maybe didn't check the links very well, because none of this adds up to significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, nothing worth merging. Maybe leave a redirect but I doubt this particular model phone gets any significant search traffic in 2024. Andre🚐 23:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As per nominator. ♠PMC♠ Gauravs 51 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gauravs 51, this article is almost 20 years old. What benefit do you feel will come from incubating it in draftspace for six months? What sources do you believe are likely to emerge about an obscure defunct product from two decades ago? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it doesn't have any references. I am just hoping that the creator will add some new references to the article in the draftspace. Best will be redirect to Audiovox Gauravs 51 (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the situation here. There are no "new" references to add. I checked whether any sources existed as part of the nomination process and found absolutely nothing useful. So even if the creator – who by the way has only ever made a single edit – returned from their nearly 20 years of inactivity, there are no "new" references that they could add, because they don't exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir. Now understood the full scenario. I have changed my opinions. Gauravs 51 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find coverage in newspaper sources or through TWL's magazine archives. Along with the lack of coverage online I see no reason to keep. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:12, 12 October 2024 (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.