Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder 1000000


 * 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. Balance/strength of arguments favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thunder 1000000

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

No assertion of notability, due to questionable sourcing. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep: It gets over 50 views a day; it must mean something to somebody. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: No assertion of notability? Article claims: "It holds the record for the biggest loudspeaker ever made." Now if only it can be properly sourced. Rilak (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - poorly-referenced, lacks notability, plenty of original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know it's not properly sourced, but there are like six linked sites that say it. And pictures which illustrate it pretty well. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Six questionable sites (blogs and forums). Is there nothing from magazines, etc.? Rilak (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Daniel Christensen is improperly canvassing for votes regarding this debate. See here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel sometimes asks me questions--he and I both edit audio-related articles. Your example of canvassing is just another of those questions. I've done a lot of reverting or deleting of his changes before this; I'm not what you would call an accomplice or meat puppet. I think Daniel was gambling by contacting me about this AfD; I could have gone either way on it. Technically, 'canvassing' involves a wider search for support than a single shout out to a known editor who has relevant experience. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It is the heaviest, largest single driver woofer. Like a concept car, production of the unit isn't necessary to establish notability. Article has horrible problems with WP:OR, accuracy and verifiability but could conceivably be improved. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How? Improvement should be done within the privacy of people's own computers until it is actually verifable. Wikipedia is and remains an encyclopedia and it needs to meet minimum criteria before an article can be thrown open for collaboration. -- Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I redid the references so that they have the proper footnotes and moved the forums and blogs to external links. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until its properly sourced, verified, and contains enough info as to why it should be included. Even the gizmowatch reference only say that it claims to be the biggest subwoofer (not speaker as the article says). Maybe I claim to have a larger one, I'll put that in wikipedia too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:16, 30 March 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.