Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BaoFeng UV-5R

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. Most of the arguments here are pretty undetailed in terms of explaining whether WP:PRODUCT is met. On the few detailed arguments about the sourcing, it seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether it satisfies WP:SIGCOV standards. Overall, this is perhaps closer to a delete but not really close enough to say anything beyond "no consensus" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BaoFeng UV-5R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PRODUCT. non-notable generic radio transceiver. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ḱeep as it does not fail WP:Product per "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.". It is a notable transceiver radio that is sold widely and is mentioned in multiple articles of community projects on for example Hackaday. This particular model has thousands of reviews just on Amazon for a single listing, it has been sold through different channels (especially Chinese web shops). This model is also the base of a lot of other transceivers under different brands. Also, it is notable on the Slovak WP where it has been published for few years. I have added more links to the article since it has been nominated, so please review it again. Initramfs (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how this article fails WP:PRODUCT. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is a notable product due to the widespread attention and FCC controversy that it has attracted. I announced this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amateur radio --mikeu ^talk 20:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence. Just saying it is notable doesn't cut it. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can find some WP:RS that provide some WP:SIGCOV, many links are from youtube, reddit and blogs, not really independent reliable sources. The other seems to be WP:PRIMARY that gives this WP:PRODUCT as an example only, in passing. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ARRL, FCC and Hackaday sources are independent RS and there seems enough depth for WP:GNG and a modest article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mark viking:, I'm sort of new here, but the FCC (Primary) only mention the company (nothing about UV-5R), the hackaday is a blog. I can understand the ARRL, but the rest? (feel free to reply to my talk page if you prefer, I appreciate any help/explanation) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The FCC is primary, but authoritative for their own sanction, and the sanction is about selling the UV-5R. I consider Hackaday a reliable source for maker/hacking topics--there is some editorial oversight, and their content is usually solid. Cheap and controversial, the UV-5R has had more impact than most transceivers. Reasonable people can disagree, but given my knowledge of the amateur radio field, this is my recommendation --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Are we really heading towards keeping a product because of a couple short "hacks" blog posts and primary sources like the FCC (not even secondary coverage of an action the FCC took, but an announcement that it's doing something)? No, these sources do not satisfy WP:PRODUCT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sources fail WP:GNG guidelines. Let's take a look.

• #1 is first-party. FAIL.
• #2, #4, #5, #7, and #11 are blogs. FAIL.
• #3 is significant, reliable, and independent. PASS.
• #6 I'm unsure of its reliability. PENDING PASS (until someone gets me more info on it).
• #8 It appears that the FCC is not entirely related, for which I will give it independent status. PASS.
• #9 and #10 are a wiki. FAIL.

We got two passes and one pending pass, so I'll leave my vote as !keep. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly sourced information on a product that isn't notable. EvilxFish (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Just barely passes WP:GNG per analysis by AnUnnamedUser.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ḱeep passes WP:Product a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just to reiterate, this isn't even a close call for WP:PRODUCT -- it seems the answer to my question above is yes, we are going to keep an article about a product based solely on "hacks" blog posts, a local news blip, and primary sources like the FCC... yikes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete #3 is not significant, and the FCC is not "coverage". It may have been recommended for an emergency but the content and sources here do not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 3 November 2019 (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.