Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyric Hearing

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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric Hearing[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product from a non-notable company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InSound Medical. I think we need a product notability guideline that is more prescriptive than that at WP:PRODUCT. Products are something that are regularly added to WP. If we have a guideline or policy we can easily get rid of product SPAM articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has coverage from notable sources related to the subject (i.e. independent), such as The New York Times and The Independent. Minima c (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable and independent sources to show notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InSound Medical actually seemed to support having this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:product. There are enough independent sources to attest to the product's innovation and notability. It is the only hearing aid of its kind, and represents a significant step forward in hearing aid technology. People with hearing loss (me included) have an interest in independent information about the product. WP can provide that. Innovative and groundbreaking products should not be considered SPAM articles. Though, I would support merging the InSound Medical article with the Lyric article. Lwnf360 (talk) 00:34, 12 September 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.