Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dmatteng (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with Bose_Corporation, and re-direct. New products come and go, and keeping up-to-date links to products will be difficult. I would also remove the intervening articles, e.g. Bose_digital_music_systems, which have little content. Gathering it all under Bose_Corporation will mean that it will be easier to remove outdated products if they are no longer notable. LaMona (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Outdated products that got good coverage probably should be kept. We have several FA articles that are about completely outdated products. Dmatteng (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This all hinges on "got good coverage." Most products from well-known companies (car-makers, electronics companies, fashion houses) get "good coverage" in the press about that type of product when the product is released. That's because there is a large segment of magazines and online news outlets whose "beat" is to cover new products, and thus to attract a particular audience. That is normal. For a product to have notability it needs to have been a game changer. I realize that there is a WP page for a huge number of car models. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it is according to current WP guidelines. If any topic is notable, it may have its own article. Otherwise, would it be a good idea to merge PowerBook 100 with Apple? The product is outdated and generated coverage in around 1991. Dmatteng (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Bose SoundLink per WP:PRODUCT. Wikipedia is not a product guide. I oppose redirecting to the Bose Corporation article itself, but above all this article should not be kept as-is. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I would support redirect to Bose Corporation should the Bose SoundLink article get AfD'd. But until that time the most logical target for this article is the article on the entire SoundLink product line. I know WP:PRODUCT says redirect to the company page, but that guideline doesn't seem to anticipate the situation we're faced with: namely, where there's a more specific article than the main company page that discusses a product line, a corporate division, or something similar. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge in to Bose Corporation per WP:PRODUCT. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:PRODUCT reserves the possibility of inclusion of products that are not notable on their own to the article of the company that produces them. WP:PRODUCT supports that products that are notable on their own may have their own article. The product demonstrated sufficient notability by the reliable sources presented on the article, it also got Editor's Choice award by PCmag, one of the most reliable sources regarding computer-related products. Dmatteng (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oops I had no idea PCMag & CNET were even there!.... I will admit however the article does need better sources but anywho passes GNG AND PRODUCT. (Thanks for the message.) – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:PRODUCT the product should have its own entry as it demonstrated sufficient notability on its own. Dmatteng (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is already mentioned on Bose_SoundLink. Merging it with the article would make it unnecessarily long. Same as what I did with an article about a boxer Vasyl Lomachenko - creating an article Orlando Salido vs. Vasyl Lomachenko. Would the fight be not notable, or without sufficient reliable sources, I would create a section within the main article. However, since the fight was mentioned in detail in multiple reliable sources - I wrote an article and linked it to the main article about the boxer. Dmatteng (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then a redirect without merge would be appropriate since this product is sufficiently covered by the SoundLink article. This product is not sufficiently notable to merit a separate article.—/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus this product is sufficiently notable. Dmatteng (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Cnet, Pcmag, and others review this product. It passes the general notability guidelines just fine.  Nothing gained by deleting 99% of it, and merging a token sentence here and there to another article.   D r e a m Focus  06:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dream Focus. Multiple reviews satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.