Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helio Ocean

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. kur ykh 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helio Ocean

Contested prod; Reframing: Wikipedia Policy states products should be included in the company's page unless it makes the main page unwieldy. This product is currently covered in the Company's main article rendering this additional page redundant and out of compliance. I propose deleting this page and redirecting it to Helio (wireless carrier) (I should note, helio was never an actual wireless carrier so that should be adjusted as well) Shell Kinney believes this redundancy is necessary. Further, this article was written by helio employees primarily as a marketing tool and reads as such which is also prohibited. Sgeine (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I feel qualified to give a thumbs-up or -down on this, but I have a couple of observations that may be relevant:

The article as it stands reads like something direct from marketing--a rehash of press releases and spec sheets. The References and External links show why. At the very least it needs a major rewrite.

I'm not real sure what constitutes notability in electronic devices, but I would expect to see one of three things: a popular product that is a market sales leader in a significant chunk of the world; a cutting-edge product that has demonstrable design influence on the rest of the industry; or a product that has exceptional social impact. I don't see evidence of any of the three in the article.

Nor did I see those influences on Google. I searched "Helio Ocean" and came up with 616 hits, almost all of which were sales links, press release reprints or board discussions. Some were reviews, but I don't feel qualified to judge the reliability of those reviewers, hence my unwillingness to express a final opinion. Rklear (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the following comments were deleted by User:Sgeine at 06:01 on 23 October 2008. Rklear (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you don't like the writing style, then do some copyediting. That is no reason to AfD it. If it's notable and supported by references, it stays. Anything else is scope for improvement, not removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient information for notability. A product does not have to be a great success to be notable.DGG (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean is a dual-slider cell phone (manufactured by Pantech), combining a traditional numeric keypad and a separate full QWERTY keyboard in a single handset. Designed primarily as a social networking tool, the Ocean merges instant messages, text messages, picture messages and email services from all of the major portals in one phone but none are integrated with each other. The Ocean also delivers MySpace Mobile on Helio with a new user interface, music downloads, video-on-demand, a 2 megapixel camera, an HTML browser, GPS-enabled Google Maps, Garmin Navigation, Buddy Beacon and supports Mail for Microsoft Exchange. The Helio Ocean comes with 200MB of internal memory and a microSD memory card slot (expandable up to 2GB). The Ocean became publicly available on May 11, 2007.76.213.229.6 (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since this IP has now identified himself, it is worth noting that Sgeine was topic banned from Helio due to gross and repeated NPOV and BLP violations. Since he was evading this ban by editing without being logged in, I have indef blocked his account, Sgeine. Shell ^babelfish 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the opening was reframed my original comments were removed: I believe the product itself is notable outside of the company and was covered significantly. I agree that it needs cleanup but like Andy Dingley said, that's not a good reason to delete the article. Shell ^babelfish 20:27, 23 October 2008 (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.