Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus mini three (3rd 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. sufficient consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus mini three

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

Prodded by Aerospeed, but has previously been to AfD. 2 AfDs have ended in no consensus, in large part because of a lack of comments. For this reason, it's sat with a notability tag on it for 7 years. Hopefully this time enough people can analyse it for us to get a resolution. If not, I think if there's been no consensus to delete at a third AfD, we should remove the notability tag. Boleyn (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying all who have looked at its notability before: LedRush, Mr. Guye, Trout Ice Cream, Lesser Cartographies, CowboySpartan, James500, Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thank you Boleyn for nominating these articles I didn't feel confident in nominating myself. I PRODed this article due to notability and promotional issues. The notability issue is easier to prove, as the article has only one source, that of its own website. All other sources I've found so far clearly show the product exists, but not showing why it's notable. I found this article that does a good job describing the article, so this might be somewhat notable. The majority of the article is promotional, however, considering that there are phrases such as "The main advantage of Optimus mini three..." and "they do give an accurate look at the final design." Only the first paragraph is sourced, and it only gives info on when the product was released and what it is used for. The rest is promotional and unsourced. Overall, this looks more and more like a promotional article, and should be deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 11:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles references may justify a section in Optimus Maximus keyboard but not notable on its own based on the material a search shows. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:06, 28 March 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.