Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell Axim (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Dell Axim

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dell Axim
• Articles for deletion/Dell Axim (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Dell Axim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has barely any citations and is rich in detail that I don't believe can be substantiated by secondary sources. Additionally, the product has been defunct for nearly 20 years and doesn't seem to have left a lasting cultural footprint. I would recommend deleting with a redirect to the Dell Technologies article. Please note that I'm a Dell employee with a COI, so my opinion shouldn't be a determining factor. I'll leave developing consensus up to independent editors. Thanks! JM with Dell Technologies (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There are links to some reviews in the External links section. Seems to be quite popular line in its time - judging how easy was to find some reviews/news:
  • PC Mag, 5 August 2003, p. 33 - 1/4 page First Looks
  • PC Mag, 25 November 2003, p. 38 - 1/3 page First Looks
  • Maximum PC, September 2004, p. 76 - full page review (X30)
  • PC Mag, January 2005, p. 36 - 1/2 page First Looks
  • PC Mag, 22 November 2005, p. 48 - 1/4 page First Looks

The nominator is right that the article is in a bad shape with only few references and too much unreferenced content. From my POV, the article subject is notable, but my computer time is limited, so I'm unable to improve it much (well I may provide some references on the talk page for others to use). Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple references available, historical interest. Dujo (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2025 (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.