Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epik Subwoofers


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Epik Subwoofers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subwoofer company, no coverage to be found. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a CNET source in the article, but that's about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not appear to be notable enough. SemiHypercube (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Here are a couple other product reviews:, . ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the audioholics review even worth mentioning? It's all specs and 3 sentences - hardly substantial and certainly not enough to establish notability. While on the surface hometheaterhifi appears to be an RS, a single review is not enough to warrant an article. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already a CNet review referenced by the article. If hometheaterhifi is an acceptable source for you, we now have multiple sources and so the notability criteria is met. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have rephrased what I said - in general the hifi site would probably fall under an RS but I don't find either review substantial enough to warrant an article and it appears most others are in agreement. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * what are you using to gauge whether a review is substantial enough? ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete there is not enough reliably sourced encyclopedic content since there is only one reliable source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (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.