Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination)

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 Snowball keep Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bose wave systems[edit]

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

Notability concerns over a lack of references. This article, and related articles have recently passed through an unclear multi-article deletion or merge process where no consensus could be reached owing to the complexity of the issue. This is an attempt to AfD one article alone, so we can hopefully agree on something. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related merge discussion at Talk:Bose stereo speakers#Merge_Discussion_-_Bose_Products Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "Wave" is a flagship technology for Bose and deserving of an encyclopedic NPOV article explaining just what it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ~~Comment~~ AfD seems to be the wrong venue for this. This product is clearly notable and I have a hard time believing that additional references are difficult to find. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor appears reluctant to accept that the article is notable and has AfDed it once in a batch, then put forward a merger proposal, on that basis. As they so helpfully explained WP notability policy to me just today, it's not notable until it has references added. So this article needs to either shape up or ship out, because the faffing about otherwise is getting ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't get it. Is this an AfD or what? What is Andy asking -to delete or not to delete? --Cyclopia^talk 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a continuation of the merge discussion linked above. What is probably needed is an WP:RFC and not an AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC might be a good idea, should anyone care to go that route. I just want to see some definitive statement on at least one of these articles, so that we can stop going in circles. It does also need referencing, because although it might be obviously "notable", it's not WP:N until the fat lady sings, or whatever our policy requires. Until it meets policy, clearly and unarguably, it's exposed to further attempts to merge it away - surviving AfD only a couple of days ago certainly didn't resolve the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy please read WP:POINT and withdraw the AfD. We understand but that's not the right way to solve the issue. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF. I'm the one who's been accused of working for Bose, had my CV posted across the debate and all the rest of it, because one editor wouldn't take "This is clearly a notable product, leave it be" as a response to their first AfD. Now maybe RFC is a better place, but I honestly didn't think of that - if anyone wants to take it there, then that might well be the best and we could certainly wrap up the AfD then (I'm going to be too busy, but feel free). In my tiny little mind (and I've already been accused of being too inexperienced to even comment on this AfD) the best forum for proving WP:N beyond any further shadow is a simple one-article AfD where we all can decide if it's notable or not, then drop it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because one editor wouldn't take "This is clearly a notable product, leave it be" as a response to their first AfD. - I am sorry for the harassment, but, well, the editor "not taking it" was quite right in doing so. That said, I am not saying that you are not in good faith, quite the contrary, I am saying that maybe you are not familiar with our processes and stuff. I may be wrong; in this case I apologize. Anyway yes, there's RFC, there is the WP:RS/N if you have problems with sources, etc. - But not AfD. AfD is if you feel the article has to be deleted for some serious reason. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on the RFC suggestion but badly conceived merges are easy to undo - deletions not so easy. This isn't the place. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There's a merge discussion going on that should be allowed to proceed. This is not the right venue. Notability or not, once an AfD has closed as keep, or as in this case no consensus, the debate should continue on the talk page. I can somewhat understand why Andy is acting in good faith here given the actions of the opposition but this AfD just isn't the time or place to continue this debate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Based on two things. One, the fact that this was just AfD'd. Even if it closed as no consensus, there's not really any need to renom. Second, this seems to be blatantly notable. A search of google and/or google news turns up a number of refs. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With an ongoing Merge discussion already in place, and an AfD barely a week ago, this AfD is procedurally wrong, and is in bad faith because of it. This poorly-thought out AfD will do nothing to change the ongoing discussion, and discussion outweighs formal AfD. Point of order: nominator then opposed their own nom. This is not how the process works. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to AGF with regards to the nom due to the fact that AfD has traditionally been more of an "articles for discussion", although I'm well aware that presently it has focused more on just "deletion" --Tothwolf (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very well known group of products from major company. Dozens of reviews available for third party sources. Merging all of this to the company is absurd--like merging all of Fiord automobiles. Whether there should be articles on the individual models is another possibility, for there are sufficient RS reviews of many of them to meet the GNG--which in this case is the only applicable guideline. I find it very difficult to assumie good faith in this set of discussions, especially as I am aware that there is a strong negative opinion --with RSs, yet, about some of the company's products. Please, would someone who knows the sources better than I start adding reviews. positive and negative DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This prose surely needs clean up, but this is a very well known consumer product with a long history and a good deal of third party coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on it's the highly ambiguous Bose stereo speakers that needs deleting. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article easily meets the standards for inclusion with sources that easily conform to our guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh my GOD. Come on that page survived the nomination and didn't get deleted; this should by realativity be kept; even though someone showed me this page that says that is not a good argument. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... - This is a weak nomination. There may be a lack of references currently listed but it's a pretty well-known concept, and it should be obvious that good sources can be found, which makes this nomination a waste of everyone's time. However, the article, perhaps in the way it's titled, implies a unique technology, and that fact would have to be backed up by third party sources, I think. The name seems promotional; It even sounds like a separate company. The article should be moved to a title that better reflects it merely being about a line of products. Equazcion (talk) 17:54, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Keep this one as clearly notable - as opposed to merger of the rest of the equipment into the parent company article. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (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.