300:. Note that reviews don't count towards notability if they are just recycled press releases (which, sadly, many are these days). Such reviews are not independant of the subject. To judge whether this is the case people need to read the reviews, which are currently not discussed or even mentioned anywhere in the article. The article would be much improved by the addition of a "Reception" section discussing any independant reviews.
320:
electronics reviews, but as that editor stated, people need to read the reviews to determine whether they are independent or just "recycled press releases". I have actually read the reviews, and the majority are clearly independent since they criticize the device in ways that no paid press release
368:- The reviews now listed in the article are not recycled press releases. For example, CNET has an Editor review, ad well as user reviews. User reviews don't establish notability, but an editor review does, and the CNET review for the iRevier Story is just that -- an editor review. --
216:
This e-book reader running Google software has been reviewed by reliable electronics publications such as PC Magazine, Ars
Technica, PC World, Cnet, Engadget, Laptop Magazine and Gizmodo. Clearly, these reviews are sufficient to establish notability.
163:
321:
writer ever would. As HairyWombat suggested, I have added a "Reception" section to the article with brief quotes from five independent reviews demonstrating notability and neutral coverage of this device.
124:
345:
157:
48:. For now, I can somehow see a consensus for keeping the article, there should be a specific notability guideline for computer devices, but as per
17:
248:
about this issue. I'm actually far more interested in the global issue of notability of computer hardware and software than whether
97:
92:
101:
53:
178:
84:
244:. The reviews, which aren't in the article, would only establish a "presumption" of notability. I've started a thread at
145:
392:
36:
64:
391:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
282:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
139:
135:
377:
357:
336:
304:
286:
261:
232:
207:
66:
185:
57:
329:
278:
225:
171:
62:
353:
198:. If there is a more specific notability guideline for a computer device, I couldn't find it.
88:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
301:
297:
274:
245:
195:
49:
257:
203:
151:
373:
322:
218:
349:
80:
72:
118:
253:
199:
369:
385:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
114:
110:
106:
170:
184:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
395:). No further edits should be made to this page.
346:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
344:Note: This debate has been included in the
343:
252:particular article is kept or deleted.--
296:No evidence that the topic satisfies
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
52:, the article seems to pass it. (
316:HairyWombat may be right about
1:
378:17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
67:15:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
358:00:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
337:06:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
305:17:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
287:08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
262:16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
233:05:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
208:23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
412:
388:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
59:♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛
44:The result was
360:
194:Does not satisfy
54:non-admin closure
403:
390:
334:
332:Let's discuss it
326:
230:
228:Let's discuss it
222:
189:
188:
174:
122:
104:
60:
34:
411:
410:
406:
405:
404:
402:
401:
400:
399:
393:deletion review
386:
330:
324:
226:
220:
131:
95:
79:
76:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
409:
407:
398:
397:
381:
380:
362:
361:
341:
340:
339:
308:
307:
290:
289:
267:
266:
265:
264:
236:
235:
192:
191:
128:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
408:
396:
394:
389:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
335:
333:
328:
327:
319:
315:
312:
311:
310:
309:
306:
303:
299:
295:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
231:
229:
224:
223:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
61:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
387:
384:
365:
331:
323:
317:
313:
293:
270:
249:
241:
227:
219:
213:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
81:Iriver Story
73:Iriver Story
45:
43:
31:
28:
302:HairyWombat
158:free images
273:Satisfies
350:• Gene93k
125:View log
314:Comment
294:Delete:
242:Comment
164:WP refs
152:scholar
98:protect
93:history
325:Cullen
298:WP:GNG
279:Warden
275:WP:GNG
246:WP:N/N
221:Cullen
196:WP:GNG
136:Google
102:delete
50:WP:GNG
254:Bbb23
200:Bbb23
179:JSTOR
140:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
374:talk
370:Whpq
366:Keep
354:talk
318:some
283:talk
271:Keep
258:talk
250:this
214:Keep
204:talk
172:FENS
146:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
46:keep
186:TWL
123:– (
376:)
356:)
348:.
285:)
277:.
260:)
206:)
166:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
56:)
372:(
352:(
281:(
256:(
202:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.