Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaesu FT-1000MP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. The last keep !vote points to some notability, which those supporting for deletion have not rebutted nor responded to. –MuZemike 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yaesu FT-1000MP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Flagship product of this company. Just like the other Yaesu deletions, I expect to be able to find reliable third party sources that establish notability. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: 6-page review in the April 1996 edition of QST (Journal of the American Radio Relay League) (available on-line only to ARRL members, but AGF, I promise it's there) and another 6 page review of the updated version in November 2000. ARRL calls this product the "gold standard" in its class (August 2002 QST). There have been many more articles in QST reporting that winners of major amateur radio contests are using this product, and dozens of articles covering modifications, repairs, etc. Just because this product is aimed at a niche market with minimal journals available to generate coverage, does not make it NN. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:46, 15 December 2011 (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.