View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose stereo speakers

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bose stereo speakers

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

This is an AfD for multiple articles, all having to do with specific product lines offered by the Bose Corporation. None of these articles are notable enough to warrant a separate article, and therefore they should be merged into their parent article per Wikipedia policy. There are thousands of companies worldwide that create similar products, and there is no reason that Bose's specific products are more notable than any other company's nearly identical offerings. Additionally, these pages all read like an advertisement. Many of the pages are formatted in a similar way, including show/hide drop-downs that reveal "specifications" about each particular product, which often include the price of the product and its warranty details. Additionally, most of these pages include very long lists of past model numbers (with extremely brief or nonexistent descriptions) which are meaningless to anyone except Bose employees and extremely enthusiastic Bose fans. It's my opinion that most (if not all) of these pages were either created or purposely modified by the same person (or group of people) for the sole purpose of creating a Bose advertisement on WIkipedia. The encyclopedic content of each of these articles usually boils down to a sentence or two. These few sentences could easily be merged (per WP:PRODUCT) into the Bose Corporation article, or even into the article for that particular product type (for instance, Loudspeaker, Headphones, Home Cinema, etc). I would like to add that I personally do not have any ill will for Bose or its products (I actually own several Bose products), I just sincerely believe that these articles do not belong on Wikipedia. Snottywong (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bundled articles nominated for deletion

  • Bose stereo speakers
  • Bose headphones
  • Previous Bose headphones
  • Bose computer speakers
  • Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems
  • Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems
  • Bose wave systems
  • Bose digital music systems
    • Keep. This company's technology is notable, as evidenced by the references included and by additional references which could be added after a Google News and Google Scholar search. If there is non-encyclopedic information in the article, it can be removed, but the presence of non-encyclopedic information is not in itself reason to delete an article. An article about a company's products need not be an advertisement, particularly when many of the products described in the article are no longer manufactured. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually look at the references or just count how many references were on the page? 95% of the references on these pages are either primary references (from Bose's website), copies of press releases on non-Bose sites, or user product reviews from sites like cnet.com. These are not reliable, independent, verifiable sources. These articles have received heavy criticism in the past for reading like advertisements, and these "references" were likely added to add a superficial appearance of legitimacy. Don't be tricked. Snottywong (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having an article on "Bose stereo speakers" is like having an article on "Kenmore microwave ovens" or "Craftsman doorknobs". It's an article on one specific (and rather uninteresting) example of an extremely ubiquitous item. If you allow this article to remain, then you invite similar articles such as "JBL stereo speakers", "EAW stereo speakers", "Yamaha stereo speakers", "Sony stereo speakers", "Pyle stereo speakers", ad infinitum. Also, can you really say that you agree that there should be a "Bose headphones" article and a completely separate "Previous Bose headphones" article? In that case, let's add a few more articles to Wikipedia: "Sennheiser headphones", "Previous Sennheiser headphones", "Sony headphones", "Previous Sony headphones", "AKG headphones", "Previous AKG headphones", etc. And, if we allow "Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems", well then I'm going to Best Buy and I'm going to write an article on every different model of home entertainment system that they carry. Now do you see why these articles are inappropriate? Snottywong (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, no one is disputing whether the Bose Corporation itself is notable. We're disputing whether or not these individual product lines within the Bose corporation are notable enough to deserve their own articles. Snottywong (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The reference I noticed the most was a scholarly article by an Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who happened to be the founder of the Bose company. For me, the question is whether a particular manufacturer did something particularly innovative, rather than something that was obvious to anyone working in the field. I do not pretend to know whether Sennheiser, Sony or AKG headphones or speakers qualify in that regard, but if they do, they are notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastmain, if you can find multiple reliable, independent, verifiable sources that prove these particular Bose products were significantly more innovative than anything else out there on the market, then I will agree with you that these articles should stay. I can tell you right now that you won't find these articles. They're inexpensive consumer headphones that you can get at Best Buy or Circuit City. Now, there is a lot of hype out there about some of these products (like the wave radio), but that is primarily a result of Bose's significant PR efforts (which is why every "source" you find is either from a Bose website, a regurgitated Bose ad or press release, or a user product review). Snottywong (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I say that would be the existing Bose Corporation article as opposed to any notional Bose Corporation products article. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am available to merge the notable content of these articles into the Bose Corporation article, should that be the decision of the admin reviewing this case. Snottywong (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep I have done a lot of recent editing to these pages. I have use the Apple pages as my guideline and I have very slowly tried to bring them to that caliber, but real life does get in the way
    currently the basis for inclusion in wikipedia is simple If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. So lets see the sources that are currently listed:
    Here are some reviews of just some of the products talked about (I didint have time to flesh all of them out...)

    I hope that I made my case clear. These subjects are notable and have a right to be included. The articles just need some wikiediting to get them upto the standard that the iPod, Xbox 360, Gdium, DBox2, PlayStation 3, CherryPal, Pioneer BDR-101A, GP2X Wiz, Daewoo Espero, iLiad, Toyota Noah, Neo 1973, Samsung I7500, Buffalo AirStation, Skytone_Alpha-400, Killer NIC and Lexus RX Hybrid has set on Wikipedia :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix, I whole-heartedly disagree with your reasoning. I understand you are the primary contributor to this article and that you have put a lot of work into these articles. That, however, doesn't make them notable. I think that you fundamentally misunderstand what a source is. Sourced articles "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Nothing against the sources you've mentioned, but I don't think Professional Pilot Magazine has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article in Fortune magazine entitled "26 must-have gadgets" is not a source. It's an advertisement in a magazine posing as an article (similar to the WP pages we're discussing here). And, I'll leave it to you to tell me why Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson is a source for your Bose articles.
    None of the links you've provided above are a source. Product reviews prove that the product exists, but that's all they do. They're just advertisements. The one source that comes the closest to being a real source is the Active Sound and Vibration Control by Osman Tokhi and Sandor Veres. However, when you go to page 13, you see that Bose is mentioned in a single sentence, letting us know that Bose offers active headphones for sale. The only thing that source tells us is that Bose sells headphones. It does not prove that Bose's headphones in particular are notable enough to deserve their own WP article. Do Bose headphones deserve a mention on the Bose Corporation article? Absolutely. Their own article? No.
    You compare your articles to a long list of articles on Apple products. What you fail to realize is that Apple has a long list of products that are unique and one-of-a-kind. iPod, iPhone, iMac all had no precedent, and were all technological revolutions. This makes them notable. Run-of-the-mill computer speakers or home theater stereo systems are ubiquitous, and therefore are not even close to notable. Also, take a look at the references list on the iPod article. There are almost 100 references, including patents and articles from reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are not simply a long list of product reviews on cnet. Snottywong (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide a list of two or three real references from truly independent, reliable, fact-checked, accurate sources of which the primary topic is "Bose computer speakers" or "Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems" (or something similar). Ensure that these articles are not just regurgitated Bose PR advertisements in an obscure magazine. Ensure that these articles from reliable sources clearly establish why these products are unique, revolutionary, inspirational, or otherwise notable or significantly different from the vast sea of other companies' computer speaker and home entertainment system offerings. Produce these sources and I will cede my argument. I assert that no such articles exist. The burden of proof is yours. Snottywong (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little time to comment so I will be brief this time. But is your argument that C|Net is NOT a " reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If you check them I believe that you will see that it is exactly that! Oh I do understand collapsing some of my convo into a hidden box.... But not everything! Please allow my hours of work to be read by others, thanks! -- Phoenix (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that product reviews on cnet.com establish notability? If that's the case, then I will begin the process of creating a WP article on every product that has a review on cnet. I'm still waiting to see two or three real references that establish the notability of each individual product group that you've created an article for. The incredibly long and borderline disruptive list of irrelevant links you've copied and pasted above don't include any real sources that establish notability, as far as I can tell. Most of the above links establish the fact that the products exist, nothing more. You haven't provided any evidence that these products need more than a brief mention within the Bose Corporation article, with a brief description of what they are and any awards they may have won. Snottywong (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Phoenix79 says "Currently on wikipedia there are these articles related to Apple Products..." but this is absolutely not an argument for keeping any of the Bose product articles, per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the "wave" products go, these are highly notable as one of Bose's flagship products with some "magic" technology. They are widely advertised, high-priced and rarely discussed, leading to a situation where WP readers are in need of encyclopedic coverage of them that objectively and WP:NPOV explains just what it is they're buying.
    If there really is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then of course delete them, according to policy. However I find that unbelievable (although it's not my field of knowledge, so I don't know of them myself). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Dingley, if you don't know whether there is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then it is your responsibility to go find out before voting whether to keep or delete these articles. Snottywong (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately we work by consensus, not by voting. Nor do I appreciate your implication that it's suddenly my responsibility to fix any article you've taken a dislike to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said or implied that it's your responsibility to fix any article that I personally dislike. This AfD was started because of a question of whether or not these articles are notable enough to deserve their own articles. There are clear standards on the definition of the word notable. I simply said that anyone who is putting forth an opinion on an AfD should, first of all, fully understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and second of all, should do the research to ascertain for themselves whether or not the articles are notable according to that definition. Your opinion above is essentially a "gut reaction" as to whether or not the subject is notable, and you even admit that you don't know if there are any reliable sources. No one is disputing that the Bose Corporation is notable. What we're arguing about here is whether not specific product lines within the Bose Corporation are actually notable enough to deserve their own articles. No one is forcing you to vote on AfD's, but if you choose to vote, I'm just asking that you do the work required to come to an informed opinion. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that the Wave line is rarely discussed seems to me to be an argument against notability. If the line is rarely discussed, then why bother having an article devoted to it? Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I wanted to add the template to this AfD, but templates are deleted using a different process (the AfD template doesn't work in a template namespace). If the admin reviewing this case decides to delete or merge these pages, then we should be able to either speedily delete the template (for lack of potential usage) or start a TfD if someone opposes the speedy delete. Snottywong (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I also clearly stated that I was not looking for people who only share my opinion, nor did I even state my opinion or any of the details of what the AfD is about. There is no wrongdoing here per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices and Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions. I feel this discussion could be moved along if a few experienced Wikipedians (which I don't necessarily consider myself one of) would weigh in with logical arguments (for either side of the argument) instead of gut reactions. Snottywong (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is intended to gather a random-ish segment of Wikipedian opinions, and inviting a biased audience like those who frequent the Review could negatively affect this process. To offset this, I made a note for the reviewing admin as well as any others who come to this discussion. –xenotalk 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My fault, I apologize. I guess I thought that my message was pretty neutral, and I still don't see how the audience of the Review is biased, but you'd probably know better than I. Sorry about that, this is the first AfD that I've nominated, so I've learned my lesson. Hopefully I didn't corrupt the whole thing. If it means anything, all of the comments above Xeno's comment were posted before this incident. Snottywong (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Xeno: I'm not seeing WR reading users as any less random than any other pseudo-random self selected collection of users. So I don't see a big deal here. However I would point out that mentioning something on WR often has effects far different than one could expect or predict. So watch out for that. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For this subject, you're probably right - I would still generally advise against it. And agree about the Law of unintended consequences. –xenotalk 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also far from happy about Snottywong's ATTACK and the comment, "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors." Particularly as it's from someone who still sees AfD as a vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax, Andy. You're arguing semantics now. I obviously don't believe AfD is a vote. My comment to you was that if you are going to "vote" (or "express an opinion" if that makes you happier) on an AfD, a minimum amount of effort should be directed towards research, in order to produce an informed opinion. Yes, I used the word "vote" in my comment, but I'm not under the delusion that an admin is going to disregard everyone's comments and simply numerically tally up the Keeps and the Deletes and see who wins. Snottywong (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about semantics, or your comment to me, it's about you going to an external website and denigrating other WP editors, myself included. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bose technology is sufficiently different than other more generic brands (there are a few other brands for which this is true) that the topic is worthy of coverage. Remove all the product spec sheet data, the warranty info, the pricing, the puffery, and if there's anything left, merge what remains either to a single article, or if not enough remains, to Bose Corporation and leave redirects. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar, Bose technology is not significantly different from other audio technology companies. Imagine what it is that you would put into an article entitled Bose technology... What kinds of things would you put in there? Many companies have earned patents—many companies have one or two novel products. Whatever your answer, it is no reason to have individual Bose product articles. Instead of having a company-wide "technology" that is sprinkled like magic pixie dust on every product, Bose has a whopping marketing department which makes the product seem special and unique.
    One thing to note about supposed Bose technology is that long ago they decided to remove standard specifications from their home consumer product literature and manuals. Buy a Bose loudspeaker system for the home and you will not be able to read the accompanying literature to find out its frequency range, its audio power handling ability or its acoustic output power. It is only when you go to www.pro.bose.com that you get product specification sheets like this that show projected performance of the kind required by audio professionals. Go to Google or your favorite search engine and start typing in "no highs no lows" and you'll see revealed in front of your eyes the old audiophile adage used when criticizing Bose. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support the creation of a Bose Marketing Strategies article... :P Snottywong (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sorry about the canvassing mistake. That was ignorance on my part. I'm not sure what you mean by "Bye Bye AGF", as I think I've made my opinion abundantly clear here, and I assure you I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. But anyway, you can't seriously agree that we need a "Bose headphones" article and a "Previous Bose headphones" article. I think if this AfD resulted in an outcome of "Merge", with a specific instruction that these articles are to be merged into the Bose Corporation article, or into a single Bose Products article, it would serve as an edict with which the major contributors to these articles could not argue, and I think that would be a small success for Wikipedia. Without the AfD, a merge discussion would have almost certainly gone to mediation. You might be right that I should have tried that first, but... here we are. Thanks for the comments. Snottywong (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we don't need a Bose headphones article and a Previous Bose headphones article. However, considering the way you're trying to get these deleted in one go, how do expect any decision to be made that considers these as individual articles? The very best you can hope for here is a "no consensus" unless you're lucky and the closer looks at these as individual articles - which you haven't done with this nom. I'm sympathetic to your concerns about COI and spam but we don't delete articles because the editor(s) have a conflict of interest. We judge the articles individually on their own merits. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. And further, the articles can be edited to remove problematic content now, while the AfD is still underway. If one removes all the spec sheet data and marketing stuff and there isn't much left, all the more compelling reason to merge. But do the actual merge after the AfD closes, please (...if anyone's thinking of it now). We have had enough problems with that in the past. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it have been better to nominate each article separately? The AfD guidelines seemed to suggest that if you have a bunch of articles that are similar and all suffer from the same issue, that it would be less taxing on the AfD queue to list them bundled. Some of these articles are completely devoid of encyclopedic content (in my opinon), while others have small amounts of valuable information. I could try to delete the non-encyclopedic content from each article, but in some cases that would result in blanking the article or reducing it to a few lines, or at the very least deleting large sections. Would that not be seen as inflammatory or disruptive? I need to be careful now as I have apparently already committed one faux pas. Snottywong (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bold merges and redirects are consistent with the WP:BRD cycle of editing. –xenotalk 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there is notable information about certain products. I disagree that there is enough notable information for an entire article. Something like the couple of sentences that you just posted above could easily be added to the Bose Corporation article (or a "Notable Bose Products" type of article), and it would be a fairly complete treatment of the subject. Snottywong (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SPA notice placed by a supposedly "RETIRED" editor, then replaced by another supposedly "RETIRED" editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orderly Conductor (talk • contribs)
    And who are you a sockpuppet of? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, let's delete Herr's cheese puff snacks immediately.
    Now what do you think about the Bose articles, the one's we're actually discussing? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he clearly thought the articles were "annotated merchandise catalog descriptions". How long have you been an employee of Bose, Andy? Did this discussion bring you out of retirement, or was it something else? -- Orderly Conductor (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have some bias as a result of working for Bose (I haven't, BTW), and especially not posting personal information to an edit summary. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SPA notice placed by a supposedly "RETIRED" editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orderly Conductor (talk • contribs)
    • MergeAfter reading the opinions stated above, the original nominator (me) would like to put forth a vote for merging (as opposed to outright deletion). There is a small amount of useful information in these articles, and I believe that a discussion should be started about the best way to merge these articles. I hope that the AfD admin's decision is to merge, and if so, I look forward to working with the major contributors of these articles to reach a consensus on how to merge these articles. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all for now, per above comments about innovative speaker design and Bose Wave Radios. However, definitely no prejudice against independent renoms of anything not meeting WP:N later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quantity of sources alone (regardless of relevance to the topic, or quality of the source) is not a criteria for notability. Especially when some of the sources are as irrelevant as Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson. (Yes, I'm not joking. That is one of the sources listed in Phoenix's list above. Go and look for yourself. While you're at it, take a look at the rest of the sources. None of them are reliable, independent sources that establish notability. You will, however, actually have to click on Phoenix's links and read the content they refer to in order to come to this conclusion.) SnottyWong talk 02:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <Sigh> snotty, you don't think that Books are notable? So your argument is Tech Magazines and News articles are notable... Ok thats simple. (God I love google!)
    I could go on but frankly I have a life and this has taken up way too much time. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, fictional novels are not considered sources for electronics products, even if they have the word "Bose" in them. I'm surprised you need someone to clear that up for you. Anyway, congratulations! You have successfully established notability for "Bose Products". This is what I have been saying all along. There are definitely some articles above that qualify as sources for one particular product (while many of them are still not qualified sources, and I don't have time to go through each and every one to explain why). However, could you produce a similar list of high quality sources for such a narrow topic as "Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems" or "Bose Acoustimass blah blah blah"? Unlikely. That is why I believe these articles need to be merged. The articles as they stand now are absolutely written as advertisements, and when the non-encyclopedic content is deleted from them, they will be much shorter, and the argument to merge will become much stronger. SnottyWong talk 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that you don't consider items notable if they are talked about in books or if people believe that they are notable enough to create products designed to specifically for the above systems. Weird. As for the Acoustimass page, I just forgot to look, I will later though. The 321 systems are already sourced directly above. [3][4][5] -- Phoenix (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about what I think is notable or what you think is notable, it's about what Wikipedia thinks is notable. If you can find a Wikipedia policy that states that a product is notable if it gets a mention in a fictional novel, please send me the link. If there is a Wikipedia policy that states that a product is notable if other companies have created products to work along with it, then please send me the link. I have sent you the links numerous times showing you the specific Wikipedia policies that say these articles are not notable. SnottyWong talk 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You would benefit from a high-school class in simple logic. The absence of a policy that states "X is notable if Y" when Y is anyway ludicrous does not mean that X is non-notable. Nor does WP have any (AFAIK) policies that state "X is not notable", merely a long list of policies that state "X does not indicate notability by Y" (and do not preclude X demonstrating notability through Z instead). You seem obsessed with proving notability through fictional novels, when no-one else is trying to do so. Nor does a lack of notability for that reason (fictional novels) have any relevance to a separate reason, such as mention in relevant publications for that field (magazines on consumer electronics). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Phoenix79, those sources for 321 don't hack it. When a magazine article simply lists a Bose product as being a possible choice out of a number of other products, it doesn't confer notability. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you would benefit from a course in grammar, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Phoenix listed a fictional novel as one of his "sources" to establish notability, and then defended that source multiple times in the conversations above. That was what I was referring to. Wikipedia has an immense collection of articles that define what is and is not notable, and what is and is not a valid source. I can back up my arguments with specific WP policies which show that Phoenix's sources are not valid, and that these articles are not notable (see the mountains of evidence above). I'm simply demonstrating that Phoenix cannot do the same. If he could, we wouldn't be having this argument. There is no flaw in my logic. If a subject is to be deemed notable, it must fit WP's policies for notability. If a source is to be deemed valid, it must fit WP's policies for sources. All I'm saying is, provide evidence for your argument. Provide the WP policies that prove these articles to be notable, and that prove your sources to be valid. It shouldn't be too difficult to wrap your head around that logic, should it? SnottyWong talk 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by I can back up my arguments with specific WP policies which show that Phoenix's sources are not valid, and that these articles are not notable (see the mountains of evidence above). I'm simply demonstrating that Phoenix cannot do the same. If he could, we wouldn't be having this argument. I have quoted WP:N to you and you disagree what is considered independent reliable reviews. But if you want, here is one that gives some examples of what would be notable, two in particular:
    1. Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it.
    2. The Oxford Union satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it.
    So if books make a subject notable (hoping to get money by association with that product) wouldn't accessories made specifically for them and fakes to look like them make them notable? But I guess thats not really a nessacary argument any more since you agree with the other sources I have found.
    I also believe that someone asked about prices. That is VERY common if you look at other pages on wikipedia, actually other pages go into much more detail that found on the Bose pages PlayStation 3 launch#Release data and pricing Wii launch#Release dates and pricing, Pioneer BDR-101A, Wii#System sales & Lexus RX Hybrid. For gods sake even the Apple Mighty Mouse article talks about how much it costs!!!! -- Phoenix (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson (listed as one of your supposed "sources") is hardly a book written about Bose products. Secondly, just because WP says that a product is considered notable if there are independent books written about them does not mean that the same policy is applicable when an independent company offers accessories for those products. I don't know how you can possibly jump to that conclusion. Thirdly, per both WP:NOTDIR (item 5) and WP:OSE, your argument on including prices and warranty information are clearly not valid. The first couple paragraphs of WP:PRODUCT clearly show that these articles need to be merged with their parent article. Per, WP:PRODUCT, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This is clearly not the case as the Bose Corporation article is actually moderately short.SnottyWong talk 14:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - sources indicate that the topics meet WP:V and WP:N]], which is all that we can ask. Batch nominations are seldom a good idea, particularly in instances like this. I would probably agree with others though that eventually key products and innovations should remain while lesser known ones are grouped together in a "List of..". Having said that, AfD is not cleanup. A couple of mergefrom/mergeto tags post AFD closure should eb sufficient to gain consensus. Gazimoff 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Create an article about Bose products and put the most relevant information there. We do not need a catalog of every Bose product ever. Miami33139 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only eight articles under discussion here, one for each of several quite separate product categories. Whilst I'd agree with your general point, that's not far from what we already have. There aren't articles on "every Bose product ever". Nor would merging headphones and speakers be appropriate, or would lead to coherent articles. Bose make a wide range of products, we need more than one article to cover them. There may well be scope for some merging between particular articles, should anyone want to discuss that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I was just browsing randomly and got to this but when I clicked history I realized back in February I added 4 brackets to this page!! 4 bytes. Don't jsut throw that away! A link to my power handling article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all of them together, make List of Bose products or something. Please notice that searches in google books pick up all the advertisments in magazines (example). Seriously, product reviews are not exactly reliable sources, and wikipedia is not a list of every model ever manufactured by a company. Get some serious source explaining the impact of Bose products in the market, in society, in the technology of the field, etc. (I suppose that this AfD will go down in flames and that the articles will have to be merged one by one....) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Emric, are you actually saying that if the AfD ends in keep, rather than merge, you will go ahead to merge them one at a time anyway? Agreed, merge is a separate editorial decision, but we normally think it wrong to do so in clear violation of a close, i( assuming of course that to be the close). It might indeed be possible to obtain enough consensus for them, but I suspect these merges would find enough opposition that they would not get consensus. (As for the merits of merging, It makes as much sense as merging all the articles of Ford Automobiles. What we want to avoid if making too many articles on closely related individual product models if the product model is not individually very significant--which some but certainly not all of Bose's products may even be, Don't run to the other extreme in lumping, for it will just encourage those who want to split every possible variation separately, as a collector's wiki would do. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the result is Keep or No Consensus, it will likely be as a result of bundling all of the articles into one AfD, and I think it would still be appropriate to attempt to build consensus for merging them one at a time. If that consensus cannot be found through discussions on the article's talk pages, then each article will have to get its own individual AfD. SnottyWong talk 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    keep All- sources back up pages & show notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.240.163.221 (talk) 20:26, 1 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.