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. Sandstein 13:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-990

[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Reviews published in places where reviews of such products are published, but doesn't have non-trivial coverage in reputable publications. Mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment QST is published by the ARRL and is reputable. --Mark viking (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but they review everything. But that's the point of saying that these are reviewed by places that review radios; that doesn't demonstrate notability for the product. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources per GNG. It doesn't require selectivity. The amateur radio and SWL market has relatively few products introduced each year, so it is natural for the publications like QST and PopComm to cover most or all new products. --Mark viking (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it requires selectivity; otherwise, every product in the Sears Catalog would be notable. Wikipedia is not a catalog; magazines like QST endeavor to review every possible product in their scope, notable or not. Of course, the magazine also has editorial and technical content. If this radio was discussed in such content, then that would be a far more convincing argument. The fact is that this radio is not a notable product; it did nothing that notably changed the market or the industry. Compare its place to truly notable products, which have a tremendous amount of third-party coverage about their effect, design, influence, and so on. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References establish existence but fall short of demonstrating notability in terms of affecting the field. Having little more than simple listings and brief reviews shows that it has not had a lasting legacy on the ham field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 2 January 2017 (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.