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 delete. The consensus is to delete. There is mention that there has been no significant alteration since the last AfD, and the only keep is saying that other articles exist, which is not a reason to keep this one. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IC-92AD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. From article talk page, Last time article was up for AFD, everyone agreed that more references were needed. None have since been found. Borderline NN article, cited only to vendor, reads like an instruction manual. 24.177.123.74. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This radio is as notable as any in the Category:Amateur radio transceivers. If the article needs to have it style improved or more/better citations, edit/improve it instead. --DeVerm (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, hey? There's a reason the references are still lacking-- there's nothing establishing notability here. There are no Google News hits, and the of the top Google hits, the only one that's not trying to sell it to you is Wikipedia. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Written like a simplified user manual, not an encyclopedic article. It has the same problems it did in its first nomination. Take it to an amateur forum somewhere. Out of all D-STAR radios, this is the only one with an article. What makes it so special? There are redirects to this article from three other models, none of which have any article text history. If there is something that could enhance the D-STAR article, move it over there. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 13 February 2011 (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.