Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high-end audio equipment manufacturers (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Cbrown1023   talk   19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of high-end audio equipment manufacturers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I propose deletion for this reason: it is too difficult to define "high-end" or "high fidelity" with respect to specific products or specific manufacturers. Different observers draw the line in various places. Additionally, the page has become an across-the-board linkfarm with very little utility for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, subjective, no clear criteria for inclusion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, originally I objected removal, but now it seems like the right thing to do. Adamantios (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently biased Z i g g y   S a w  d u s t  15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If that is the case, but AfD is not for resolving NPOV issues. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If an article cannot be written in such a way as to comply with NPOV, then it should be deleted. Presumably that's what "inherently" means in this context. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, I am aware of that and thus should've elaborated further. I agree. High-end is incredibly vague and there is intrinsic POV in it. Unless a suitable NPOV means of collectivising said manufacturers can be found, my thoughts on the matter are Delete. WilliamH (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above discussion. I would suggest renaming, but I can't think of a name for this article that would provide a clear neutral unambiguous inclusion criterion. As it is, it's a bit of a spam-magnet. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a list, the reader is referred to the article High-end audio which discusses the terminology. This is, after all, a commonly used term at the retail level. POV issues and sourcing can be fixed.  JGHowes talk  -  00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This list needs lots of cleanup, and it's not clear that anyone's interested in putting in that kind of work.  Nevertheless, a cleaned-up verison of this list would clearly be worth keeping per WP:CLN, and since deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, I suppose that makes this worth keeping.  Klausness (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, what makes equipment "high-end"? I doubt many manufacturers would describe their products as "low-end", for instance.  The list inherently contains a POV, no matter what is to be done with it, and should be deleted for that reason.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:13, 27 April 2008 (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.