- 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. Given the sources located by Trevj midway through the discussion, and the acknowledgement by the nominator that this addresses most of their concerns, no consensus to delete. If the article isn't improved within a reasonable period with these sources and still fails to assert notability, it can be renominated. Daniel ( talk) 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Media Go
- Media Go ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All sources are trivial (noting the release) or primary. I've not been able to find any reviews or non-trivial third party sources. It may be because the name is hard to search for ("media go" pulls up a lot of irrelevant things and including words like "sony" helps but nothing looks reliable and relevant). Hobit ( talk) 11:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG.-- Rollins83 ( talk) 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The article contain useful information .-- mowsala 14 December 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Fails general notability guidelines. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 08:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it could certainly do with a good clean-up! The generic name doesn't help searching, but I'd have been extremely surprised if a product that's been around for a few years, produced by such a multinational, didn't have any sources. I think I typed something like
'"media go" sony'
but the recent removal of the GNews link from {{ find sources}} may have done more harm than good... that's something I intend to investigate separately. Cheers. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it could certainly do with a good clean-up! The generic name doesn't help searching, but I'd have been extremely surprised if a product that's been around for a few years, produced by such a multinational, didn't have any sources. I think I typed something like
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:32, 22 December 2013 (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.
- 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. Given the sources located by Trevj midway through the discussion, and the acknowledgement by the nominator that this addresses most of their concerns, no consensus to delete. If the article isn't improved within a reasonable period with these sources and still fails to assert notability, it can be renominated. Daniel ( talk) 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Media Go
- Media Go ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All sources are trivial (noting the release) or primary. I've not been able to find any reviews or non-trivial third party sources. It may be because the name is hard to search for ("media go" pulls up a lot of irrelevant things and including words like "sony" helps but nothing looks reliable and relevant). Hobit ( talk) 11:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG.-- Rollins83 ( talk) 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The article contain useful information .-- mowsala 14 December 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Fails general notability guidelines. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 08:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it could certainly do with a good clean-up! The generic name doesn't help searching, but I'd have been extremely surprised if a product that's been around for a few years, produced by such a multinational, didn't have any sources. I think I typed something like
'"media go" sony'
but the recent removal of the GNews link from {{ find sources}} may have done more harm than good... that's something I intend to investigate separately. Cheers. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it could certainly do with a good clean-up! The generic name doesn't help searching, but I'd have been extremely surprised if a product that's been around for a few years, produced by such a multinational, didn't have any sources. I think I typed something like
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:32, 22 December 2013 (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.