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.
This page should at most be merged with
Casio F-91W as the F-105W is just a newer variant of that model. The content of this article is no more than specifications and a user manual, with no indication of notability. There is no need to keep this article. BoxOfChickens (
talk ·
contribs ·
CSD/ProD log)20:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What about the historical fact that this model existed? I am particularly fond of the F-105W and think that it should stay or be mentioned on the F-91W page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Willoc (
talk •
contribs)
17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Also regarding what Willoc mentioned the historical fact that the watch exists (a claim no one is disputing) is not enough for an article, it needs to pass
WP:N which calls for multiple instances of non trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
WP:ITEXISTS may also be a good thing to look up.--
72.0.200.133 (
talk)
18:41, 4 January 2016 (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.
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.
This page should at most be merged with
Casio F-91W as the F-105W is just a newer variant of that model. The content of this article is no more than specifications and a user manual, with no indication of notability. There is no need to keep this article. BoxOfChickens (
talk ·
contribs ·
CSD/ProD log)20:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What about the historical fact that this model existed? I am particularly fond of the F-105W and think that it should stay or be mentioned on the F-91W page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Willoc (
talk •
contribs)
17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Also regarding what Willoc mentioned the historical fact that the watch exists (a claim no one is disputing) is not enough for an article, it needs to pass
WP:N which calls for multiple instances of non trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
WP:ITEXISTS may also be a good thing to look up.--
72.0.200.133 (
talk)
18:41, 4 January 2016 (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.