Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Razer products


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Razer products

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A clear violation of WP:NOTCATALOG. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: ... equipment, ... products and services ... Unlike a company like Apple, few of the products that Razer produces are separately notable, which makes the utility of the list for navigation questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note that despite some of the comments, here, some of Razers products do have separate articles, notably the Razer Naga and the Razer Phone, the vast majority do not however. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Computing,  and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not a violation of WP:NOTCATALOG. That typically doesn't involve list articles like these, and a lot of Razer products receive notable coverage, just not enough to warrant their own individual articles due to the amount of products Razer releases on a regular basis. Apple on the other hand maybe releases a maximum of 10 products a year, and they're typically revisions to their existing products, not outright new ones. Razer on the other hand does not have any signature product lines that they effectively keep the same name for, except for the Razer Blade, BlackWidow, DeathAdder, and a few others. Having a list of razer products is fine, and this list has existed on the platform for a loooooong time. I'm not saying its useful or popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR and WP:ITSUSEFUL), but there is a genuine reason for this article to exist as it serves as a one-stop shop for a general listing of razer products and serves as an alternative to inidividual articles. The article clearly needs more sources, as it lacks citations, but WP:NOTCATALOG is not a valid reason to delete this. Many articles like this have received AfDs in the past and been kept. Nominating an article for deletion is an outright last resort if an article can't be improved. So on top of saying keep, I honestly severely disagree with the mere creation of this AfD. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence shown within the article that any of these products are independently notable -- or that a list of these products would be notable. : 3 F4U (they/it) 00:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Freedom4U I am starting to get severely annoyed with this line of thinking, especially recently when all of a sudden there are lots of AfDs being created for supposed policy violations despite the fact that majority of articles that have AfDs started about them can be fixed and improved - I wanted to get the article's foundation started first before I added citations because that way it would be easier and neater to add citations later, speaking of that, I just added one for the BlackWidow V4 Pro and will add more later. Articles should not be deleted due to a lack of citations if citations can be added. This is not how articles should be handled. At all. Just my two cents. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure as to what you're referring to by "lots of AfDs being created", but a page needs to show that it meets meets the basic guidelines outlined at WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NCORP. The products themselves are not independently notable, so it goes against WP:NOTCATALOG, and the few sources that exist online go against the guidelines of WP:NCORP which specifically outlines that review articles and tech blogs are not significant/reliable/independent sources and generally rely on promotional materials from the company itself.
 * If there is evidence that the article can be improved with sources, then that's what the point of the AfD is. By all means, bring them up here, and expand the article. As it is right now, the whole article reads like an advertisement/product directory. : 3 F4U (they/it) 03:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Razer has received coverage from a significant number of sources, far more than just a few sources, and far more than the number that is in the article right now. Literally every single source about a product (even iPhones) probably leans on at least some from of promotional material about a product from the company who made it. I personally find this line of thinking also a bit out of place. Lots of the products listed in the Mouse and Keyboards sections are products that Razer has not manufactured for years. It serves not as a product directory but as a history of Razer's products, but in table form. Also, The Verge, Ars Technica, etc are very much significant and reliable sources. And TechPowerUp is a significant news site as well in the tech space. They have been for a significant amount of time. I'd argue that they are additionally independent, incl. The Verge and Ars Technica per their editorial policies. So honestly, I disagree with your take on this, and several products in the article have individual wikilinks, e.g. Razer Phone and the Razer Naga. I guarantee you right now that if people wanted to, individual articles could be created for Razer's other product lines like the BlackWidow and DeathAdder keyboard and mouse lines. Yeah not every product is going to be notable but most of Razer's products do get significant media coverage. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this is what the article looked like before I massively revamped it. A massive, unwieldy list of unorganized stuff. I went (across several hundred edits) to the effort of replacing the entire article with better, less comprehensive tables that only list the basic features and specs, and removed a lot of unnecessary product categories. And on top of that, I removed the chairs section, thereby reinstating your removal, as I do agree with you that chairs are not that notable - anyone can make a gaming chair, and from what I've heard from the web is that Razer's lineup of chairs is not exactly amazing, especially not compared to chairs from companies like Secret Lab. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the items listed have their own Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has a rule about having an article that just lists every product a company has.   D r e a m Focus  05:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Extremely clear WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation. No context for why having a list of all Razer products is important for the lay person. This is not a "supposed" policy violation, but a direct policy violation, and Wikipedia is not responsible for editors ignoring basic policy regardless of how much work is put into an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:LISTN, and all the specs info is borderline WP:NOTDATABASE. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:NOTCATALOG #6, Listings to be avoided include...products and services. There is no established notability to make an exception here, and the WP:LSC proposed by Evelyn is essentially "we know what going too far is when we see it" which seems insufficient. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not insufficient? Per Wikipedia policy, articles should not be deleted unless it’s an absolute last resort. I don’t know what’s with all the AfDs lately, but there’s no reason this article can’t be improved to warrant inclusion, including because of the fact that coverage of Razer products by Ars Technica, The Verge, etc should already make this notable. And all razer products can’t have their own individual article pages, it would be impossible to keep track of. This serves as a history, not a database, or Razer products, especially as a lot of the products razer makes aren’t manufactured anymore nor sold, however I do recognize that that increases the necessity to increasing sourcing. There is precedent for these articles to exist, and articles like these have received AfDs like these before from what I know of and have been kept. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : 3 F4U (they/it) 19:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that policy. My comment stands. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:50, 7 May 2023 (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.