Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Baby-G

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 merged within G-Shock - Nabla 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Baby-G

Template:La – (View log)

Non notable product. ~ Wikihermit 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I got about 1.4 million Google hits, and it is a real product, but I'm not sure if it's notable. Astrovega 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did a Google search before nominating, but I saw no real notability. ~ Wikihermit 00:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should be merged with G-Shock, else very very weak keep. Definitely a notable watch design, influential and iconic, but a bunch of articles about each of its little sub-designs and offshoots seems a bit much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with G-Shock as it has not enough information to be presented as a separate article. huji—TALK 03:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - ... and regarding notability, the only reviews or ratings I've found so far are these and this. huji—TALK 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with G-Shock, even if more information is assembled. Inclusion is great, but the tree shouldn't have ${\mathrm{\aleph }}_0$ leaves. —SlamDiego_←T 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Note that it is part of a list of models with other Wikipedia entries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Shock#Models.2FSeries. Guroadrunner 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. As per ↑.--Edtropolis 13:56, 16 June 2007 (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.