Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireworX
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Sufficiently notable under WP:GNG. If more strigent guidelines are required for products, then first get consensus to modify the guidelines. It is irrelevant how many products might be notable because this one is not deleted. Mike Cline (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FireworX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product. Its only stated reason of notability is having been used by one DJ. This product has made no significant impact on the world of music, it's fancruft of this DJ. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. No sources cited at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was just going to let this go, but I stumbled upon a couple of reviews ([1] and [2], the second of which is a lengthy one by Sound on Sound. Wickethewok (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Every single piece of music gear that gets released is reviewed in magazines and websites like SoundOnSound. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is the primary notability criterion... Wickethewok (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, there are apparently a lot of print reviews ([3]) in multiple languages - this was released in 1998 after all. Also fwiw, it won a TEC Award ([4]) and a few other awards whose significance I am unsure of. Wickethewok (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Every single piece of music gear that gets released is reviewed in magazines and websites like SoundOnSound. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. This might actually be notable, much as I don't like seeing Wikipedia turned into a product guide.JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I think the TEC Award makes it notable. I'm not a subject matter expert on this either, but I don't see what that matters. If anything, its better that way (from a dispassionate !voting standpoint). JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not my subject, but if there are reviews and awards, it's notable DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that makes every single musical device ever created notable enough for its own page. Conical Johnson (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking your hypothesis as true for the sake of argument: So? As long as the information is verifiable through reliable third party sources, why would this be a problem? Excluding topics just for the sake of excluding them is pointless. Wickethewok (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'd just like to see some guideline for what makes this notable. The info at WP:PRODUCT doesn't really give much guidance about what products are notable. But basically, magazines like Sound on Sound, Guitar World, etc. will by their nature publish an article about any piece of music gear that is produced, regardless of its utility, quality, popularity, impact on the history of music, etc. So any company can be guaranteed that their product will be covered by some similar periodicals or websites merely by creating the product. This seems to clearly fall under the heading of indiscriminate coverage, which we don't allow as proof of notability in other spheres.Conical Johnson (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since the article isn't very long, it would be fine if it was merged into the TC Electronic article's "Products" section. It could obviously be expanded to the point where it doesn't fit, but that probably won't happen in the near future. Wickethewok (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'd just like to see some guideline for what makes this notable. The info at WP:PRODUCT doesn't really give much guidance about what products are notable. But basically, magazines like Sound on Sound, Guitar World, etc. will by their nature publish an article about any piece of music gear that is produced, regardless of its utility, quality, popularity, impact on the history of music, etc. So any company can be guaranteed that their product will be covered by some similar periodicals or websites merely by creating the product. This seems to clearly fall under the heading of indiscriminate coverage, which we don't allow as proof of notability in other spheres.Conical Johnson (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking your hypothesis as true for the sake of argument: So? As long as the information is verifiable through reliable third party sources, why would this be a problem? Excluding topics just for the sake of excluding them is pointless. Wickethewok (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2010 (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.