Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cidco MailStation

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. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cidco MailStation

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

Not a single reference given. WP:SPA user created this page. No importance asserted. Reads more like WP:ADVERT, and includes sections written in a how-to tone. — Timneu22 · talk 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CIDCO Inc is up for CSD; this article (being a product and not a corporation) cannot qualify as speedy. — Timneu22 · talk 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet it got speedy deleted anyway. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a tidy-up but the product pre-dates a similar concept, the Amstrad E-m@iler, which has its own article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam, one of several spam articles being created by this user. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how this is spam. the product isn't available for sale any more. The article cites one article about the product. There are many reviews of the product for a a wide variety of sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] are just some. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. Hobit (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page has a link to the "purchase page" on Amazon. — Timneu22 · talk 13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - which I easily fixed by removing it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Links provided by User: Whpq demonstate that the product is notable. As the product is obsolete there should not be any spam concerns--Pink Bull 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I guess. Whpq's refs are not overwhelming, but they are real. Not spam, as product is obsolete. Marginally notable. 03:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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.