Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Practical Devices Corporation


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Practical Devices Corporation

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

Non-notable manufacturer; links are to websites, forums, and the company's own website. The reviews are not from reliable audiophile publications, but from individual audiophile websites. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no tubes - no amp. NVO (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all solid state: that's electronics without tubes, like your computer (unless you're using a CRT). Vacuum tubes vs. not doesn't enter into it. They're still headphone amps, and Practical Devices is still a company. Mark Forest (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The websites provided as independent reviews would appear to be edited by someone other than the reviewers and publish under the reviewer's byline; they are not self-published and would appear to be good enough to provide general notability.  That one reviewer didn't seem to be all that impressed with the product reviewed suggests that this consumer product business had enough independent interest and has not been exclusively edited for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Spam where I can't find any references that demonstrate notability.  Them From  Space  01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The independent reviews cover the material in the article and show there's interest from publications who aren't self-publishing about the products and have some editorial process (aka reliable sources). - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 18:43, 21 April 2009 (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.