Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission Argonaut loudspeaker


 * 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 all The consensus was that none of these products were shown to be notable. Mandsford 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mission Argonaut loudspeaker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A rather ad-like article of a rather typical loudspeaker. Maybe it was reviewed in "HiFi Magazine" once. ospalh (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I've nominated these other Misson speakers along with the Argonaut as they are similar product pages:

ospalh (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) And this redirect...

ospalh (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. These loudspeakers were not influential or notable. That they existed is clear, but they are not discussed enough in reliable sources to make them stand out. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all none of them are notable— Chris! c / t 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all  Reviews are what show notability for products, & most or all  of these have not only reviews, but multiple review.  And some of  these, e.g. . Mission Freeman, have awards as well. IThe review sources are good RSs for this type of product, and they are substantial enough.   At the very least, merge further to Mission electronics, currently a redirect to the company that combined it and multiple others. WP keeps product information, and all these are informative, not promotional, and reasonable for the guidelines.   DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Also, a rebuttal to DGG: if there are ten reviews of a television camera and no one uses it, is it notable only from the ten reviews or not notable at all? Raymie (t • c) 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but the fact that you or me use anything does not attest to notability in any way. As for TV cameras, I doubt that anyone still uses the Iconoscope, but it does not diminish its notability. As for the topic subject - delete. These articles have no future. Reviews attest to some notability but these articles have no chances of advancing even to B-class. Sorry, it's all the same in audio world. It's either sales chaff, or "non-reliable" testimonies of the real experts, - no sound (pun) wikipedia-grade sources. East of Borschov 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking more about current products, not things like the Iconoscope. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:N, Notability is not popularity.; If there are multiple 3rd party RS substantial articles about something and it has sold a minuscule number of items, it is still notable. Even more, if it has been notable in the past, it is still notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a product review site. Product review sites discuss currently available products Encyclopedias are written as permanent record of the past and the present.
 * The low possibility of expanding an article does not warrant deletion. We keep stubs. We want high quality comprehensive detailed articles, but not all the articles will be, any more than they have ever been in any print encyclopedia . Even Diderot's Encyclopedie back in the 18th century has many one-sentence articles.   DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 5 October 2010 (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.