Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clevo x7200

Add links
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 no consensus. Trending towards keep on the basis of the references to extensive third party coverage now linked to in the article.  Sandstein  19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clevo x7200[edit]

Clevo x7200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, no rationale for removal of PROD nomination. Non-notable laptop, mostly promotional, no credible referenced assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a Web host for customer support. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD deletion is x7200&action=historysubmit&diff=424695698&oldid=424695039 here.
  • Delete There are a lot of laptops in the world. What makes this one stand out? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Granted, this is a consumer product. But how is it notable? Wikipedia is not a directory of every model of every consumer product ever sold. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every manufacturer's website. Edison (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison. Hm, one might almost say "Wikipedia is not a parts catalog." Jeh (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, but if you did, you'd touch off three solid weeks of drama. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JClausius.
    • This article started from research for a new laptop purchase. Having thoroughly researched other laptops on the market, I came to understand the unique characteristics of the x7200 laptop. It is not merely just another mobile computing device, but more of a "mobile desktop", and I could not find any other computers with similar characteristics. The goal is not to provide a "support site", "fan site", or other trivial data, but rather to inform and provide detailed information about this unique device. See my recent edits for unique characteristics.
    • In regards to the notability argument, hopefully I've been able to capture "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" of the x7200 in the article. One can find a multitude of information in PC Gaming sites, Technology Review sites, Laptop enthusiast forums and the like. AnandTech, PC Magazine, Tom's Hardware, Computer Shopper, You Tube, etc. -Jclausius (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, you seem like a new editor. Welcome. Just so you know, Youtube is generally not considered as a 'notability provider'. The argument is that anyone can upload videos onto Youtube so notability (and reliability) is not guaranteed. See WP:SPS for more information. As for review sites, see my comment below. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update - I added some more research regarding why no one knows about Clevo, the history of the x7200 predecessor (D900), as well as sources regarding the x7200 itself. It was a good excersise as I uncovered some cool facts (which I may have inferred in this discussion rather than referenced) in addition to shocking things like spending more than £10,000 on the x7200! In any case, it is in the discussion section of the main page. It's late here, so I'm off to bed. If you take a quick look, let me know if any thing there is on the right track and should be added to the main article for references, notability, etc. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, from the specs, it's just a really good laptop. It's not groundbreaking-ly innovative or something, nor is it the best-selling/most well known product. As for RS, I don't think review sites and things like that can provide notability (sure, they can provide the correct specs, but not notability). Review sites contain a lot of products, they don't all deserve an article. If that is the case, then everything on, say, Amazon, can have their own article. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree about innovation. Perhaps, I'm not making a strong enough case, and I'll update the article later today. How many laptops exist on the globe that allow the end user to use desktop CPUs inside a laptop? How many laptops are there which allow multiple graphics cards inside a laptop or up to four hard disk bays? What laptop vendor allows you to overclock the CPU and Video cards of their systems? Finally, what laptop manufacturer has designed a system in which the video cards, CPUs, and disk drives are end-user upgradeable? The Clevo based system is unique in this regard, and that is what I believe is notable about the system. - Jclausius (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know a bit about desktops but little about laptops. I will take your word for it. So it is a laptop with desktop features and I also take your word for the fact that it's new. But it is not notable. As I said, review sites-only does not usually provide notability. Because almost every big review site will review most if not every new laptop/desktop release by the big companies. Not all are notable. You saying that it is notable because it is amazing and stuff counts as WP:OR. You need some source other than review sites to say that it is notable. For example, say, when i7 was released, it was reported by many non-review-RS. e.g. The Guardian[1]. Find a similar RS and I (and likely the other Wikipedians) will change my mind. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look later today when I have some free time. I don't think it will necessarily be a review, but rather an article from a tech site, which should meet the RS criterion. For the most part, laptops have traditionally soldered graphics cards or CPUs directly on the laptop's system board. Clevo's innovation was to use normal desktop components which can be exchanged/upgraded without changing the system board. While the x7200 is not Clevo's first model to do this, it is the latest. Once I find the links, I'll update the page, and you can let me know what you think. Thx. 72.251.164.101 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some links / references to the general discussion of the page. I didn't necessarily want to add it to the page as I'm a tad uncertain if it is up to snuff as RSs. If anyone wants to give them a look over, let me know if you feel this is on track, or still not viable RS citations. Thanks. - Jclausius (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, although it might contain some RS regarding the 'desktop components in laptop' (need expert to check the websites), there are no RS to provide notability for this specific product. Linking 'desktop components in laptop is innovative' and 'this product does it' and say that it's notable is, I think, original research. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did find references to "Sager laptops", but not necessarily to this model. There is so much crust around generic search results, that it was difficult to come up with anything in an hours time. I'm going to think about this, and refine some of my search queries to see if I can find anything related to Sager's innovation and continuing that within the x7200. Sounds like that is the RS you are looking for. Jclausius (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously sources talking about Sager laptops does not qualify. Also note that it has to have a significant role in whatever source you find (as opposed to just mentioning it briefly). Good luck. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 23:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use of pluggable standard desktop-format expansion cards in a laptop goes back over twenty years, right back to ISA bus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the pluggable cards for the Clevo, but rather upgradeable CPU/GPU. These used to be all part of one laptop system board. The advent of socket for CPU/GPU is what is new. Still haven't looked up a RS on this. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Web site which makes fewer of these claims; looking at the picture, if you can fit two standard desktop video boards, a standard desktop CPU board, and four hard drives into that box, a better model name would have been Tardis. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But for a laptop a police box is not the most comfortable thing to lug around -> although size is one of the knocks against the x7200. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not new. Several different series of Dell laptops (to my personal knowledge) have had sockets for the CPU and/or the GPU, and I doubt they were the only other ones. This beast is just the first one in your experience. And even if it was the first, that would just make it the first to have used one particular combination of selections out of the various options that face any designer. That in iteself doesn't make it notable, as there are a very large number of such combinations. Jeh (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criterion for notability of products is not what the people here think of them, but whether they have reviews or other references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. This does. There are cited in the article full reviews from PCMag and other good sources. I do not see that any of the delete !votes have discussed the fact that there is full sourcing for notability--except for Zlqq2144, who has the absurdly incorrect opinion that reviews are not sufficient sources for WP:N. We have used them for articles on products of all sorts, as well as media --What RSs can be better than the major review journals? It would be notable even if it were only the specialized journals, and there's at least one very well known general journal. I don't know what sort of sources he has been mind, but I don't see that an article in a newspaper would be of any more value. (I would do some rewriting--the detailed specs, after all, are in the reviews and the website & are in any case subject to change & customization) I hope JClausius doesn't kill the article with his praise of the high specs, which are relevant as an argument only as reflected by the reviews. We don't have to discuss why the review sources found it important enough for a full review, just that they did so find it. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use terms like "absurdly incorrect opinion." The process only works properly if everyone is civil. Calmly discuss the facts - what sources you have found and how well they meet the policy at WP:RS. Don't make personal comments about other editors. This is a search for evidence of notability, not a chatroom flamewar. Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Just about every laptop model or model series gets reviews, even the vast majority of the "me too" types... if only because, if a given magazine or site doesn't put up a review after receiving a review sample, they'll eventually stop getting review samples, and no one wants that! If you follow that criterion then every one of them becomes "notable" - which is plainly absurd. The standard for notability in such a prolific product category must be higher than that. For example, did the model set a prcedent that was followed by many others? (As opposed to being an idea in which no one else saw merit?) Otherwise we're just echoing manufacturers' catalogs. Is there some reason this model deserves an article of its own, and not just a section on the manufacturer's page? This page could remain as a redirect thereto. Jeh (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I think you are on the border of WP:PA there.
I do not frequently edit PC/Laptop related articles on Wikipedia, so please, give examples of articles where the product only appears in reviews. Reviews (from reliable sources) are great for providing detailed specs and I am fine with that. The problem is, as Jeh said above, that reviewers from specialised magazines/website review tens if not hundreds of new products everyday, ranging from specific models, to specific components. Not all of them deserve individual articles. This is not a catalog. Per WP:NOTCATALOG.
I will use my own graphics card 9600gt as an example. There are over 7 million results on google, including reviews from almost every reliable source and many more from unreliable sources. Look on Wikipedia, it is under the article GeForce 9 Series. No individual article. NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200), on the other hand, returns with under 200,000 results. Sure, google results does not mean everything, but I think you will agree that 9600gt (and many other PC/laptop models and components) are more notable than NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200). They do not have their individual articles.
Therefore, delete this article and merge it with Clevo or something. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what you searched on is important. Being a rebranded, vanilla laptop searching for "x7200" (368K results on Google) doesn't cover the other possible data hits from other vendor models (NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200) yields 183K results, Malibal NINE (less x7200) 13.6K, etc.). Although, those won't total 7M unique hits. Being a first time editor, I thought I would place this on a "Clevo" page, but there is no article for Clevo in Wikipedia. So, I chose the next familiar (at least to me) article... Sager. It was because of this I created the article NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200), which I now think is misnamed as it focuses more on the x7200 and little on NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200).
- Another issue regrading embedding the data is duplicated text. Being a rebranded laptop, including the same data points in every Wikipedia vendor's article would create a maintenance issue trying to keep all these in sync. To me there is enough data / notoriety that a stand-alone article is warranted. In this way, the article can be referenced in from different vendors for those interested in the laptop itself, but not necessarily Clevo. Jclausius (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clevo seems to be notable enough (6 million on google with many RS), consider creating that article instead? Maintenance should not be an issue since the laptop is unlikely to change. Also, there is no need to list out every single specification as it is doing now, IMO, just describe it in a few words/sentences in a main article (e.g. Sager and Clevo) and link it to a reliable review site which has all the specs. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if this bullet is out of place, as I'm a new editor, and do not yet know proper protocol. I added an Update commment above in my "Keep" comment. Just placing this one here in case anyone w/ previous comments scrolled down and missed it. Thanks for your understanding.Jclausius (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily meets the WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the delete arguments here are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thparkth (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Closing admin, please take a look at the article talk page. There appear to be arguments for and against deletion that are not duplicated here. Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right now I am undecided. Here is what it would take to get me to vote "keep": In a comment above Jclausius says "How many laptops exist on the globe that allow the end user to use desktop CPUs inside a laptop? How many laptops are there which allow multiple graphics cards inside a laptop or up to four hard disk bays? What laptop vendor allows you to overclock the CPU and Video cards of their systems? Finally, what laptop manufacturer has designed a system in which the video cards, CPUs, and disk drives are end-user upgradeable? The Clevo based system is unique in this regard, and that is what I believe is notable about the system." If the above claims can be established as being true, the article should be edited to contain statements such as "...the only laptop that..." or "one of only two brands of laptop that..." with citations to reliable sources (see WP:RS) establishing that the claims are accurate. Reviews that do not establish notability might very well establish feature rarity and certainly can be used to establish feature existence. If someone establishes that this laptop has significant unique features, I would support keeping it based upon it being notable, and would expect at least some of the delete voters to reevaluate and possibly change their votes based upon new evidence. Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • - I've found some RS specifically regarding these questions. Being a first time editor, I've asked Guy to help with this data, and he's graciously agreed to integrate this information into the article. Jclausius (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • - Just saw Guy cannot help. (See the article's discussion page.) He included the RS I had talked about. If anyone would like to help whip them into shape, please feel free. However, I may not be able get to it for a couple of days. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry about not being able to help more, but I am stuck at a job site. I can snatch a few minutes here and there while waiting for the technicians to set up another test, but not enough time to do a proper job of it :( Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • NP. I have some early stuff that I'll be putting in my personal talk page in the next night or so. If you could give it a peer review once done, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if you look at early laptops, every one of them used a desktop CPU, since laptop CPUs did not exist yet. Several of them had multiple graphics card, one to drive the onboard screen, and second to output to an external screen. Some transportable units (lunchbox or luggable) hence not laptops, allowed many harddrives (more than two). CPUs, HDDs, and videocards are upgradable on several laptops and other portables in the past. If you look at early mobile Radeons (not early laptop material, but "recent" stuff) several of them were user upgradable. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All good points, but those early models were not "upgradeable" by the end user as all pieces were soldered onto the system board. If you needed to change something, mostly this was handled by the vendor and parts were not necessarily "swappable" if an end user wanted to upgrade. Regardless, you are correct, as there wasn't a such thing as a "mobile" processor back in the early 1990s, and for the GPUs, this needs to highlight GPUs working in tandem using CrossFire or SLI architectures. Agreed, the wording of the article needs to be careful enough to highlight socket based CPU and tandem GPU architectures for these separate components.Jclausius (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Hardware Wikia. The article in its current state is a product information page, and not an encyclopedia article. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since ALL arguments for deletion so far amount to Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, which is an essay and thus not policy. WP:NOTCATALOG would apply if the only available information was a dull list of technical specifications and drivers; but this is not the case here. Per user:DGG the bar for inclusion is wp:notability, not wp:MILL. It requires significant coverage from third party reliable sources; if the only information was copies of press releases that wouldn't be enough as those are WP:SELFPUBLISHed. But as long as the laptop has been subject to critical review, that's enough to establish notability. Compare with Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. This article already has several sources including more than raw data, which include opinions by the reviewer.
So per WP:NOTPAPER, yes, every laptop that complies with these requirements can have its own article with the only precondition that someone is willing to write it (and that there's no consensus to merge its contents into a more encompassing article for a class of similar devices).
My suggestion is to trim to the minimum the technical tables (drivers, BIOS, utilities...) and create a Reception section with the most juicy bits of the professional reviews; taking both actions would achieve an encyclopedic article. Diego Moya (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The data in there is valuable information for whitebox system builders or those just now learning about the x7200. Is there perhaps some wiki markup to repackage this information (at least the more important parts) in a way that is less cumbersome? Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a guide, so that's not enough reason to keep the lists. That said, I think that information could stay if compiled to less cumbersome tables. Try to remove the Date and Link columns, turn the links into references with <ref></ref> tags and place them outside the table, and group by Component type and Vendor. Diego Moya (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diego Moya makes a compelling argument. So compelling, in fact, that anyone trying to determine consensus on this should pay careful attention not only to keep/delete comments, but the reasoning behind them. Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm currently trying to compile this argument into my first essay, since I think the run-of-the-mill argument for deletion is used more times that it should in AfDs. Does anybody around here have experience in writing essays? I'd appreciate feedback at my talk page. Diego Moya (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good idea for an essay. Sometime in the next few days (busy with work right now) I will review it in detail and possibly make suggestions. Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Diego and DGG, I think that this clearly meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several editors describe why this particular laptop is more powerful than the norm, but the real reason to keep it is that the article is well documented and meets wp:GNG.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it meets WP:GNG, but I would also note that it isn't just more powerful than the norm, but appears to actually have multiple features not available on any other laptop - which is why reliable sources have noted it. Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Sure the laptop is latest and greatest, and the article is referenced. But product reviews alone don't establish notability. Is it notable for high sales numbers? Is it notable for a lasting accomplishment or legacy? Within a month, the next latest and greatest computer will make this one just obsolete. See also: Notability is not temporary. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it that 'product reviews alone don't establish notability'? Nothing in wp:V nor wp:N support that opinion. A reliable, independent review site is as good source as any. The only guideline I've found against product reviews is at WP:DIRECTORY, but that's against sales catalogs (i.e. including product prices), not critical commentary. Also, Notability is not temporary works against your argument - if this item is notable per its significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't matter that it becomes obsolete later. Diego Moya (talk) 13:07, 26 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clevo_x7200&oldid=1069487343"