Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound BlasterAxx


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sing! 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sound BlasterAxx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a USB speaker made by Creative Technology. There is no claim to notability, and none of the references in the article, or that I can independently find, support any notability. All references in the article are to Creative Technology press releases.

Article was created by WP:SPA editor, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to the article Creative Technology and articles on its products. I suspect a WP:COI and have warned the editor.

I PRODded the article with the concern "No indication of notability.." It was dePRODded by  with the explanation "remove prod is notable", but no further explanation why he felt it was notable, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.

It's just another computer speaker, nothing notable about it, and the article appears to be part of a promotional campaign for Creative Technology using Wikipedia.

See also Articles for deletion/Sound Blaster Roar, just opened. TJRC (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I deprodded because of the lack of a justification for non notability in the prod, giving about an equal justification as the nominator. COI is OK as the contributor used AFC, so that is not a reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. non-notable commercial product. It won't be hard to find a few reviews, but this product isn't something notable; it didn't change a market, create a platform, or initiate a significant technical shift. Wikipedia is not a catalog. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't require such dramatic effects for products, merely that others write about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – It wasn't hard to find the reviews. They were on the first page of Google and Google News. That's all notability means on Wikipedia – simply that there are multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in enough detail that we can write an article about it. It doesn't need to be "notable" in the vernacular sense of being innovative or any other arbitrary requirement. I'd also add that although the creator does have a lot of edits about this company, the evidence for COI isn't decisive. It doesn't read like the work of a PR professional. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep there are even more reviews. eg  , in fact many new article about this product.  So WP:GNG is satisfied. Being a SPA or COI editor does not preclude writing content here.  The topic itself is important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It goes far beyond our notability bar. Antigng (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep tons of professional reviews of the products exist, making it quite clearly notable. A COI (even if proven) is not a valid reason to delete content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: All the keep votes so far reference reviews, but WP:Routine reviews do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, product reviews are exactly how you establish notability of a product. Routine coverage includes product announcements, but professional reviews are not in any way routine.  The vast majority of products never received one, for example.  If you are going to quote a guideline, at least bother to read it - neither link you gave lists product reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may, where does it specifically say that about reviews in the notability rules? If a restaurant can't be notable from a review per WP:Corpdepth, how does one of its dishes (i.e., their product) become notable via a review? (It sounds to me like the wording of Corpdepth should be changed, as right now an apparent contradiction exists). Pax 05:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The restaurant rule is silly (and probably does not reflect actual consensus), but regardless this isn't a restaurant. If the rule was meant to apply to all reviews, is wouldn't specify restaurants specifically.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule there wasn't specifically about restaurants (or their products), they were merely an example. And, silly or not, it is presently the listed rule, while in contrast any clear-cut rule establishing general notability for products from reviews is at present conspicuously absent. Given said absence, the other "silly" rule is the closest match. (I would also disagree with some of the other Keeps who argued that product reviews are uncommon, and maintain that in the technology sector in particular, every product is exhaustively reviewed. (Thus my argument for WP:Routine applying.) I would support discussion at GNG for clarifying whether or not general notability is conferred by product reviews. Pax 20:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The restaurant bit never had consensus as near as I can tell, but regardless doesn't apply to non-restaurants. (There is now discussion at the talkpage to remove or modify it.) If there is no specific guideline (my bad for saying rule, there aren't notability "rules" only guidelines), the GNG applies and it says nothing about product reviews not counting. Any yes, reviews are the standard way to establish notability - they will general be the best possible sources.  Other RS articles about a product are much more likely to be trivial "routine" coverage - announcements the product has launched or been discontinued, reports of sales figures, sale of the product line to another business, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Mikeblas that we have too many pointless articles. But the GNG is pretty clear that third party coverage is enough.  If someone wants to work on a notability guideline for computing, I'll contribute to that discussion and probably lean toward a deletionist viewpoint.  That said, I think it's a bad idea to to use a contentious notability guideline about restaurants in this discussion.  I don't see how it's applicable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources.  A merge discussion could occur on the article's talk page if people want to see if there's consensus to merge it to Sound Blaster.  There's too much coverage in third party sources to warrant deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2015 (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.