Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulsar 590


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Pulsar 590

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable product. Article mainly consists of specifications. Contested PROD by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've found plenty of references on this product, in addition to the CNET review cited in the article: (couldn't check this one, damn school filters),, , , , . Some of these are a bit trivial, but a couple of them are quite in-depth, and there also appears to have been a Tom's Hardware review as well, although I couldn't find this. The article needs a major re-write and expanding, but that's not an AfD issue. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Being mentioned somewhere on the internet is not a reason to have an article. It is just one of 100s of 1000s of run of the mill products out there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are enough proper reviews on there for GNG to be met. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete For a product to be notable imo it has to have had extensive coverage or made a real cultural impact. These headphones have done neither. Rotten regard 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Some of the reviews are apparently substantial.  DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of the product's impact. 1292simon (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that the product have an impact, only that it have substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Just added a second review source to article. We now have significant coverage in multiple sources. Please post a link to the impact policy. This is first I've heard of this. -—Kvng 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misled anyone, what I'm getting at is that routine reviews of a product do not make it notable, the product needs to be special for some reason. Similar to WP:EFFECT (I realise this is for events, but I believe it is appropriate to apply here). 1292simon (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The essay Every snowflake is unique is relevant: it explains that it's possible to have a good article for run-of-the-mill products as long as you have detailed reviews rather than bare statistics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. Apparently there's no cut-and-dried policy. I personally think it best to err on the side of inclusion. -—Kvng 19:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I started a "critical reception" section. Lots of reviews; meets notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Product reviews don't prove notability. It needs to have an impact or technical legacy. Just another product, here today, gone tomorrow. WP is not for product listings. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:22, 14 January 2013 (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.