Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray's Power Company (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. Mainly on SIGCOV grounds. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Gray's Power Company
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Survived AfD in 2014 but does not appear notable and the company does not seem to have any significance Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:A7, as the neither the page nor the linked pieces make any credible claims of significance. Previous AfD was no quorum and 5 years ago so I don't think this would count admin-shopping. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Struck while reconsidering sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get more comments on the recent !votes
 * Delete No claim of importance and no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: According to homeatheaterreview it is/was "One of the most interesting success stories in high-end audio and home theater... Gaining a cult following throughout the audio underground" - that site has a bunch of reviews but may not be a sufficiently RS. Stereophile has a large review in 2000 and another in 2004 -- both negative. There's a number of other in-depth reviews. There's also evidence of some kind of reviews in Jazz Times, Sound & Vision, and The Absolute Sound., which suggests a likelihood of further print coverage. There's not a huge amount on the company itself to clearly meet CORPDEPTH, but there appears enough reviews to satisfy GNG of at least their 400S and WP:PRODUCT applies for manufacturers. By analogy to NCREATIVE, etc, coverage of a body of work should be considered as evidence for notability even if coverage of the creator is limited. That said, I'd be happy enough with a merge to capsule in a list of noteworthy audio manufacturers until there's (NPOV, RS) expansion but I can't see a suitable target and a permastub is hardly the worst thing in the CORP world. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge into the List of loudspeaker manufacturers or the List of headphone manufacturers, per Hydronium Hydroxide's suggestion and research. Independent notability the subject possesses not. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I think It's worthwhile to note in any case that the company is actually named Audio Line Source, and the current title is the name of its product series. Reading the reviews posted, I'm not entirely convinced of their reliability or independence. The hometheaterreview.com link seems to be just a directory listing, and the other sources, while much longer, don't really offer much in the way of substantial encyclopedic information. Overall, while I'm not happy with the sources, it might be worth it to get WP:RSN to take a look first.From the information given, I'm not certain what exactly it is they manufacture, but I don't think they manufacture headphones or loudspeakers. Power conditioners seem to be the only thing that's been noted in sources, but there is no list to merge to. I have not found a merge target. Basically, I definitely don't think a keep is appropriate, but nor am I going to suggest delete. Neutral. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. See PRODUCT REVIEWS. Those sites routinely review products. They have to be truly independent before things start to count for notability. If companies are sending products unsolicited, giving products, or even paying them for an evaluation, that's a payment for shelf space on their review site which fails the independent criteria. The company itself doesn't glean of notability and their products don't seem to shine with notability either. Being among a whole bunch of things that they review is definitely not an indication of notability Graywalls (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2019 (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.