Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDJ-100S


 * 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   merge to CDJ. Black Kite (t)  01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

CDJ-100S

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable product.


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mostly one line or so about non-notable products:


 * WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - Non-notable item, only source seems to be link back to it's own site. Delete any of the articles that are in the same shape as the main one... Sergecross73   msg me   19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon seeing the later comments, I still don't think they need to have their own article, but I would be okay with a merge as well. Sergecross73   msg me   19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep CDJ-800 and CDJ-1000 - Nom did not WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE. 800 has NY Times source and 2 book sources (2004, 2010), and the 1000 article can use these too (in addition to its several sources). Other listed articles may have similar sources.  If not individually notable, Merge into List of CD DJ turntables, per WP:PRESERVE. --Lexein (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. BEFORE you delete, I'll put the info onto one page for all these. They are notable enough for that single page in that they form the basis of the industry standard CDJ-series DJ products, and are also often found in studios too. Seems best compromise. Please give me a few days to do this. --Jimthing (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (You may already know this, but there is no "notable enough" - notability applies only to whole articles, items only have to survive verifiability with reliable sources, not WP:GNG) --Lexein (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge all with redirect, either to CDJ where they already appear to be mentioned, or to a separate list. I agree with the cogent arguments put forward by Lexein, and would add that WP:ATD is yet another guideline that also precludes deletion in cases where there's a viable merge target.— S Marshall  T/C 22:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all Nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. Google news archive search has results for all of these, and not just token mentions, but actual reviews in various languages. http://www.audiomap.de/news/pioneer_mp3_deck_cdj_200/uncategorized/ for example.  A notable line of products, is sure to have coverage for it in places that review such things.   D r e a m Focus  10:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PRODUCT suggests that they should all be merged into one article but the notability of the individual products is too low for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what it said. "If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article."  If they have coverage, then they are notable.   D r e a m Focus  15:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you said and now you are saying "If they have coverage, then they are notable". That is not true. Individual notability guidelines stipulate certain conditions to be met in order to attain notability. To put it another way, sources (references) does not automatically assign notability for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No guideline can trump policy. If general notability is met, as for the 800 and 1000, individual guidelines can't exclude content. Just saying. --Lexein (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG OR the secondary guidelines must be met, not both.  D r e a m Focus  02:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. WP is not a product catalog. Product reviews don't make it notable. Any tiny morsels of interesting info can be merged to CDJ. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage over time is the definition of WP:GNG. However, I think a merged article would be a better article overall, and would benefit the encyclopedia. --Lexein (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge all: per combination of NOTE and NOT arguments above  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:20, 6 November 2011 (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.