Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Link

Magic Link}} – ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 1#Magic_Link|View log]) This page was placed on AfD by User:Canterberry, but apparently that user didn't know how to properly do an AfD. I'm assuming good faith and correctly finishing the AfD process for that user, unless that's something I shouldn't do. If that user would like to explain his rationale for deletion here, he or she may.Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the confusion. This is the first time I have done this, so thanks for completing it for me. The article has no references, and only runs to two sentences. There is no evidence for its notability either. The article would require more references, and a lot more information to warrant its inclusion as an article. Canterberry 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's all right; I included the proper steps on your talk page. And I agree with your rationale -- unless more sources come up I'm voting delete.Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources,and no reason why there should be any.DGG 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - sure, it's uncited, and a stub, but we have plenty of other articles like that, and it can be improved. Andy Mabbett 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - A quick Google is enough to verify it was a very real product. There would only be grounds for deletion if that wasn't the case. In terms of notability, we're reaching the point where every single model of some companies' products is considered deserving of its own page (eg Template:Nokia_phones), so I can't see how a major (at the time) product line by one of the world's biggest comapnies doesn't. --Dtcdthingy 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep On the basis of Dtcdthingy's argument, I took another look & realized that there ought to be sources from publications at that time DGG 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: the subject doesn't fail notability, and the article has potential for expansion. --RFBailey 17:57, 7 May 2007 (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.