Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigiTech Bad Monkey


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DigiTech Bad Monkey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product. Has not received non-commercial coverage, has not been used by famous artists, makes no assertion of notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It gets a lot of google hits, are you sure there is no non-commercial coverage there? Polarpanda (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this for example? Polarpanda (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just having been reviewed isn't enough to be notable enough for a WP article. If it was, every single musical product ever introduced would need a WP article. Conical Johnson (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just promo material (WP:SPAM). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Musical recordings have the advantage they can chart to gain notability. What do you expect here? A 2-page essay in the New York Times? I don't think it's fair to exclude a topic merely because it's a product. If it is widely favorably reviewed or widely sold, this could be a viable topic. Of course, evidence helps a lot. Has anyone asked the original creator to fix this? - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think think the guideline at WP:PRODUCT supports deletion. Conical Johnson (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * The WP:PRODUCT section actually makes more of a case for merging. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to DigiTech. I appreciate Mgm's concern, which is certainly very valid. But we do have a notability guideline for products, WP:PRODUCT, and so far as I can tell this subject fails that guideline. No third-party reliable sources are cited in the article, nor can I find any significant coverage; it's a shame, because this is a fairly well-written stub. Per WP:PRODUCT, if the product is not notable on its own, information about it belongs in the company's article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yes, we do expect coverage in the New York Times or some such other reliable, third-party, published source. There's nothing "unfair" about expecting this article to pass the same verifiability and notability standards as any other.    Ravenswing  10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I used the "2-page essay in New York Times" quote as an example of extreme stringent criteria, when a half page in another less well-known but reliable publication would do. The idea that it needs non-commercial coverage is what I object to most. The reason publications would cover it is the commercial angle. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you object to the standard for sources set out in WP:RS, I recommend dropping in on the talk page there and give changing consensus to your POV a try.   Ravenswing  19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2009 (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.