Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pace Twin PVR

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 No consensus. Three notes by anons/new users were struck. Essjay (Talk) 09:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pace Twin PVR

Pace Twin PVR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reads like a review. I doubt these belong in Wikipedia. If someone shows me policy to the contrary I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Akihabara 08:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up, satisfies WP:CORP. MER-C 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I strongly suspect that at least the FAQ section is a copyvio from the manufacturer's site, although the link in the article appears to be broken. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but as MER-C says it definitely clean up. I agree with Akihabara that it reads like a review, with a little how-to and speculation thrown in. Review, how-to, and speculation do not belong on Wikipedia. When all that is removed, it will leave a legitimate article on a product. Fg2 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an ad for a product --- as well as most of its owner's manual. Perhaps the company that made the thing is notable, but this article is not about the company, it is just an advert, and a poorly written advert at that. WVhybrid 05:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The company no longer sells the Pace Twin PVR and appears to have removed information from its website. A lot of this information is related to external support for this device. Having looked at the deletion policy there could well be justification for removal but I would point out that I have been unable to find such a comprehensive collection of information on this device elsewhere on the web. It seems to me important that the information be retained, (If this article is deleted, then the data should go elsewhere with a cross reference from digital video recorder). Tony-wkp 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The page is just a collection of information about an obsolete product, but that currently still has many owners, to whom the information has proved valuable. The information is not available elsewhere. In future, it will also be useful as a historical archive of the technological capabilities and consumer market trends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.70.211.10 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep It is no longer possible to access info via the manufacturer's site so this is a valuable source of "how to" for owners —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.160.6 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2006 (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.