Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head-fi


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Head-fi
An internet forum for the headphone enthusiust community. Speedy deleted twice on notability grounds. Article is being re-created despite notability advice given. Bringing to AfD to determine if any notability exists at all. -- Longhair 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Longhair 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the reason for your delete vote, Longhair? Dionyseus 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: -- This article fails to meet WP:WEB -- Longhair 09:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a notable website and community. Alexa ranking of 8,634.   Its forum has over 40,000 members, I think that's notable. Dionyseus 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . The article is blatant vanispamcruftisement, list of moderators, pleading against deletion inserted into the article itself (in bold) and all. Number of forum members and Amazon rank, whatever that actually means, are not indicators of notability - multiple verifiable non-trivial third-party coverage is necessary to meet WP:WEB. Amazon.com reviews don't count (they can be written by anyone and are trivial). The closest we come is "Described by HeadRoom Corporation as "the center of the universe for headphone enthusiasts", which doesn't focus on the forum - it's covered in the final paragraph. Even if you consider that non-trivial, we still fail the "multiple" criterion of WP:WEB. I searched on Factiva and found nothing but passing mentions - nothing on which to build an article. The article that came to came closest to covering the forum was from 2002, which wrote a bit about the forum though its focus was on a headphone trade show. It said little more about the forum than that it had 3,000 members - obviously more users have registered since then, but whether it has more regular members is a different matter, and no sources seem to have taken especial notice if they have. The ground rule is - if they're really that notable, someone unrelated to the website will create an article. Oh, and there are no articles linking to this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The creator of the website did not create the wiki, its members are editing it... we are still working on it... --Flecom 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral per Xyz below. I won't go for 'keep' as the article does need heavy cleanup to remove the VSCA (and whoever does that may need to be defend the article from its members re-adding unencyclopaedic cruft afterwards), and I can't unequivocally support keeping a hypothetical article that may or may not ever exist. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment An average of about 2.2 million posts monthly is quite notable for a forum.  Dionyseus 10:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be impressive, but it's not notable. Of course, I haven't the faintest idea whether it's impressive or not - it's not up to us to decide whether that primary data makes something notable, it's up to secondary sources to decide whether that makes the forum sufficiently interesting to tell their paying readers about it. When that happens we can make the decision whether those secondary sources justify inclusion in a tertiary source (us). We aren't at that point yet. WP:CHILL might be of relevance here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Check the link again, btw. It's 2-3000 posts monthly, 2.2 million total. --PresN 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I still havent gotten a reasonable explaination as to why this message board is not allowed to exist here while there is an entire section dedicated to message boards on wikipedia, that includes things like something aweful and general mayhem... what makes head-fi different? besides actually serving a purpose of course... --Flecom 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sam. Recury 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Please see the recent additions in the external links, as reputable trade publications in the audio industry such as Stereophile have reported on this site and its importance to the resurgance of headphones as a viable alternative to the speakers and home theater markets.  Stereophile's Editor-in-Chief came to the past International Head-Fi meet, as well as representatives from Sennheiser, Headroom, Shure, Etymotics, Beyerdynamic, Audio Technica, and many other major manufacturers.  Deletion of a site mainly responsible for the rise of this phenomenon (coupled with the rise of the iPod) may do a disservice to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.  -this unsigned comment was by 06:34, 13 July 2006 199.67.140.83
 * Keep Alexa ranking of 8634 (which was incorrectly reported above as an "amazon.com" rating), and the external links (which I think were just added) link to two different substantial articles from online magazines regarding this forum. The stereophile one at http://www.stereophile.com/news/042406heaven/ is the most impressive probably, since stereophile itself has a decent alexa ranking and is a paper magazine as well. The head-fi article needs some serious cleanup, of course.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed, the cleanup needed will most likely start after people stop throwing everything in they can think of to stave off deletion.  There is another stereophile article that captured the direction this community was moving towards prior to its dramatic rise this year, an interesting read on the future of audio as well.  http://www.stereophile.com/news/111405headfi/
 * Delete unless major clean-up 35.9.6.175 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Alexa rating is high enough imho, and an article in a magazine pushes it over for me. Clean up and source. --PresN 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well, I can understand why it is up for deletion, but there is notability to the community. When I started the wiki, it was just to get the ball rolling for the other more experienced members to begin filling in the holes. The website has pretty high traffic number, is voted top "hi-fi" community by Alexa, and has had an impact in the audiophile community. I'd say it is a keeper and just needs for cleanup. --Footemps 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dionyseus. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Head-Fi has been covered by multiple Stereophile articles as well other independent music forums on the web. I feel that these qualifications meet the notability standard and the article should not be deleted. Needs cleanup. Dept of Alchemy 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.stereophile.com/news/042406heaven/
 * http://www.stereophile.com/news/111405headfi/index.html
 * http://www.enjoythemusic.com/headfi2005/
 * Keep - Looks like Head-fi also has a long-standing link in the audiophile entry, and specific mention of headphones as part of that definition is included there as well. Browsers of Wikipedia interested in this aspect of being an audiophile now have a wiki entry to learn more about the main community dedicated to it, and in fact the Audiophile entry should incorporate an internal link to Head-fi in the Headphone section once it is accepted as being off deletion-watch.  Also, in case a web article by Stereophile is not sufficient, The new Stereophile arrived in the mail today and the actual magazine has a full review, by Wes Phillips, of the AKG K 701s, where he mentions Head-Fi, the New York meet in Nov. 2005, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.140.84 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep - barely meets requirements IMO, but it does. Article needs a lot of work. --jkl_sem 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - Funny, there are tons of articles of forums which do not exist anymore or too small that no one knows that have ever existed, while the forum which can be found in google by typing 'headphone' and simply click the forth link (which implies 4th? correct if I am wrong) cannot be listed in wiki. I am sorry to say that, but I don't see any single logical reason of being deletion. The forum is recognized by not only by stereophile but also by several hi-fi websites/forums such as AV-forum in UK. Also, because I am a korean, and I can say that head-fi forum is very well known to most of korean hi-fi sites. I can give several proofs if any moderator needs. Regards. (edit: I do agree that it requires some work, but you guys need to be patient.) --Wnmnkh 05:08, 18 July 2006 (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.