Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modu

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. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modu

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

Once all the marketing guff and copyright violating photos are removed we are left with an article that says "this small company used to make phones". Delete. Biker Biker (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on the underlying nomination itself. If deleted, should become a redirect to Modu Chanyu. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Modu's acquisition by google received some attention. e.g [1],[2] Ankh.Morpork 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Modu was established by Dov Moran who is one of the pillars of the Israeli start-up culture. The company received much publicity and hype and was on its way to become the Israeli Nokia, until it missed foreseeing Apple releasing the iPhone. There isn't really too much fluff here at all anymore. --Shuki (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company has coverage in multiple reliable sources, making it notable: above plus[3][4][5][6][7] Last ref claims it's in the Guiness Book of Records. Coverage in media on multiple continents in various languages. Proposer seems to want to delete because it's a bad article not because it's intrinsically non-notable or unencyclopedic, but that's not valid grounds. Article contains some info, and could easily be expanded. Even if nobody cares enough to improve it this week, that's reason to tag and wait, not to delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (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.