Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 computer monitor

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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 computer monitor[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, required per WP:GNG.I really don't think an article is needed for every single monitor, especially not for ones with such low coverage. Notability was established, and the proposal is withdrawn. Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is top of the chart for a year equate to "low coverage"? What monitor are you going to list for 1997-1998 if you don't list this one? Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The VisionMaster product line appears notable, but this particular model does not. I could find no coverage in reliable sources with Google Web, News or Books using "VisionMaster" OR "Vision Master" +"Pro 17" as the query. Rilak (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I concur with the nominator that notability has been established. Rilak (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PCWorld is as authoritative as you can get, and is already listed in the references section. Unscintillating (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "Best buy" in PCWorld is far from having "significant coverage". --Muhandes (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says not only that it was a Best Buy but that it was the top of the chart for a year. How much more significant coverage does the nominator want? Front page coverage in the NYT with a title, "Iiyama produced a WP:RS monitor in 1997-98"? I don't think that pointing to two words in an article and saying that those two words don't constitute "significant coverage" is a useful discussion. IMO the claim that PCWorld is not independent is argumentative and incompetent. IMO, the claim that PCWorld is not a reliable source is argumentative and incompetent. Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you remain civil and avoid ad hominem arguments (not to speak of name calling as you did below). I apologize if quoting WP:GNG as it is, with the wikilinks, made the wrong impression, but I never claimed PCWorld is not independent nor did I say it is not reliable. The claim (I thought) I specifically made is that having being covered by PCWorld is not significant coverage. Significant coverage is when multiple sources cover a subject in a through way. To quote WP:GNG "Multiple sources are generally expected", and "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." --Muhandes (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusation of "name calling <below>", please provide diffs. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have used softening words, but not doing so does not open the door to suggestions of incivility and ad hominem, which are uncalled for. "The statement is incompetent and argumentative" is not an ad hominem, and any suggestion that it might be is an escalation. The PCWorld article is reliable and authoritative and satisfies WP:GNG by itself. Not only was the monitor in the top ten, it reached the top of the chart. Not only was it at the top of the chart, it stayed there for a year. "Multiple sources are generally expected" is a paraphrase for "multiple sources are not needed with a strong source". Monitor manufacturers such as Dell bring out new models every few months–this monitor stayed at the top of the chart for a year. Does this mean nothing to you? If you still believe that this monitor is not notable, please name five monitors that are more notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incompetent is by definition ad hominem. And calling someone a deletionist is by definition name calling (OK, I admit to over-sensitivity on the second one, but I though I'd warn before it becomes one). If you want to make an argument, please avoid them.

So that is the previous respondent's objection, that I made an ad hominem against an argument? Why are we going down this path unless it is to draw attention away from the discussion? The root of "hominem" means "man". An argument is not a man. So by definition, it is not possible to make an ad hominem against an argument, in fact, raising such an issue should be seen as counter-productive to advancing the argument. If the argument is incompetent and cannot be rehabilitated, it may be the reasonable thing to withdraw it or abandon it. Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusatory language that I have engaged in "name calling", I had actually hoped that the previous respondent would ignore my request for diffs and say nothing more, which would have ended the discussion. Instead, the accusatory language has been escalated to the assertion that I have called "someone" a name, still without evidence. I will again ask for diffs. Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never claimed other monitors are more notable, so I'm not sure what you are arguing. As I said very clearly, individual models are usually not notable enough, which is why articles usually deal with lines of products. --Muhandes (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) From the nominator's opening statement, "I...don't think an article is needed for every...monitor...", we see an implication that some monitors should be in the encyclopedia, just not all of them. What are some of these monitors that are ok to be in the encyclopedia, when the claim is made that the Iiyama VisionMaster Pro 17 is not ok? (2) If "individual models are usually not notable enough", then there is a standard that separates models that are notable enough from those that are not notable enough–what are five that are notable and five that weren't quite notable? (3) By another standard nominator has listed, "very rare" monitors get coverage in the encyclopedia–what are some that made the cut as being "very rare" and what are some that came close? Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of other monitor models which were found notable enough, but I was being careful not to make that as a statement because 1. I did not research the subject, nor do I intend to. 2. other articles are a weak argument anyway. The standard for inclusion is WP:GNG, which we don't seem to agree on how to apply in this case, which is fine. --Muhandes (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Something that has millions of them sold, make it fairly significant. Even if most of them are in landfills. Just because its not popular now ('no coverage in reliable sources') does not have a baring on its significance. PS. PCWorld is a published magazine, so its immortalized, unlike the daily google results. ZyMOS (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. i added reliable sources. and i dont see the harm in having an article for every monitor that has ever existed. If its info is correct it can only help to educate. By thats my opinion ZyMOS (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You both seem to be missing the point, and none of you answered the original concern. "Significant" (having sold many units) has little to do with "notable", as per the requirements of WP:GNG. Notability is defined by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Having been reviewed once by PCWorld is far from significant coverage, even if the unit was best buy. It is very rare to have significant coverage of one model of a product line, which is why we usually have articles on product lines, rather than models. This case is no different. --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then merge it into a product line, but dont delete it. ZyMOS (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging could be used by a deletionist to delete the material after the merge, this monitor is individually notable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your right ZyMOS (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A monitor that came out in 1997 is not going to have as much online coverage as modern products. The PC World review is undoubtedly significant coverage as it is a review focused specifically on that particular monitor. And PC World is considered a reliable source. We do, though, look for multiple sources to establish notability. This PC Pro review is about a different monitor, but is does point out that "Almost every winning system reviewed by PC Pro included an Iiyama monitor, more often than not the Vision Master 17 or its more advanced brother the Pro 17." which indicates that the monitor is being noted, and also indicates that there are ohter reviews out there, probably in print form, that would establish the notability of this computer monitor. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Personally, I'd prefer to see a good article about the line of products than a mediocre one about a single model. At the least, I'd say the Pro 17 model should be mentioned. But I admit notability, which was not evident when I proposed the deletion, has now been established, so I withdraw the proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 07:20, 4 May 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.