Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BQ Aquaris E4.5 Ubuntu Edition (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BQ Aquaris E4.5 Ubuntu Edition

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

No basis for notability for this particular model. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has four independent media refs, so it meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

which of them do you thing reliable sources for notability , rather than sources indiscriminately covering every product in the class? DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the media coverage of the release of this device is indiscriminate? If it has been covered by the tech media then it has been covered. These are not directory listings, like a phone book, but actual reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would this, this, this and this not be considered bylined reviews/articles in notable tech publications that are reliable sources? This is by no means an exhaustive list, just the first four that popped up for me. I have to say, I don't see the problem. It does seem to rather easily meet WP:GNG, unless there's some specific criteria for tech devices that I'm not aware of. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think those "finds" pretty much close this AfD. They are all large sized media outlets with independent editorial staff. No question the topic meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources listed by Shawn give a clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous discussion was clear to delete as there were no sources at the time. It clearly meets WP:GNG now even without the additional finds by Shawn in Montreal. Close per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2015 (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.