Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss Audio


 * 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   delete. Without reliable, third party sources to back up the claims of notability, most of the "keep" arguments are rendered invalid, and as such, this article is to be deleted. ( X! ·  talk )  · @973  · 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Boss Audio

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added one source already. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: One source isn't going to cut it unfortunately. I'm not finding the kind of significant coverage that WP:CORP demands.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company is listed in Dun and Bradstreet's Million Dollar Directory, Volume 1, pp. 389, 599. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Directories such as this one generally dont do much to establish notability. Its listed in the phonebook as well.  Still not seeing significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my god that is the best comeback ever! I laughed for like 25 seconds at that! 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is an entry level budget car audio company but it is fairly large and well known. I think their finer electronics such as head units must be better than their amplifiers which greatly lack quality and are given bogus ratings. Might as well keep the article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If it's well known, there should be some reliable sources that could be added to the article, I'm having problems finding them however. Aren't there any reviews in magazines? RadioFan (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly; I think they suck too much for reviews in any credible magazine. Even if it's below you search boss audio good or boss audio bad and read forums of what people think. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete with no prejudice to keep if someone digs up RS establishing notability. I agree with Daniel C on the merits of Boss, but Bose is not any better, and neither is Bosch in some markets. The thing is indeed quite common but it's next to no-name, hence small chances of RS coverage. NVO (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I accept that D&B listing as possibly  significant. Perhaps someone could discuss their criteria. We usually do better to rely on objective outside sources.    DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD. No claim to notability is asserted, nor is significant coverage from any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim. Business directories are specifically disallowed as evidence of notability by WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per User:DGG. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (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.