Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiba HD-A1


 * 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. To my untrained eye, there is no content worthy of merging. tedder (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Toshiba HD-A1

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Unnotable HD-DVD players. In themselves they are not notable enough to have their own article. They are little more than advertisement and reiteration of technical specs. in the instruction manual. They don't conform to WP:NOTCATALOG Ejfetters (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ejfetters (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, except for Toshiba HD-A1, per DGG. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant text into HD-DVD (this mentions the HD-A2) and delete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't do that --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all relevant info from all the articles to HD-DVD and redirect there. I don't have experience with technology device AfDs, but I don't think the reviews that show up in Google News constitute usable coverage, as every product receives reviews from Cnet and other websites. Also, the whole format is defunct, so its players are very unlikely to be notable anyway. It doesn't look like there's anything worth merging, and it's not a likely search term, so a redirect wouldn't be of any use. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 01:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is relevant, its all just advertisement what the players can do, and their technical specs from the manuals. Ejfetters (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked back at all the articles to see what is notable and relevant. Bascially someone copied the owner's manual and posted it on Wikipedia... I don't see why this information should be merged to an article about a technology.  I would compare it to merging specs on a certain exact brand and model of a plasma television to an article about plasma televisions, it doesn't work. Ejfetters (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I'll change to delete, seeing as there's really no notable info to be merged and, after thinking about it, I don't think a redirect would be appropriate either. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 01:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * merge key info from a1 and a2 with regular article then Delete - looking back I think I must have started that particular article on the hd-a2 when I was a much younger and more inexperienced man because of the fact it was the first high definition player to break the "affordable" $100 mark which I and alot of other people considered to be a notable fact.. and the hd-a1 was prob because of the fact it was the first high definition hddvd player released to retail market ...   I have no problem with deletion but it might be worth noting that whole thing on the hddvd player page with a sentence or so.. up to you guys.. I don't bother editing dead formats.  not worth the effort. cheers! -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prices aren't encyclopedic, see WP:NOTCATALOG. Ejfetters (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation." - WP:NOTCATALOG -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of a price war in the A1 article, and no notability of a price war, just a format war. Ejfetters (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * merge as usual for specific models of products. Possibly A1 is worth a separate article, as the first consumer player, but this information too could be integrated into the article. Being the first commercial product of a major type is notable. Perhaps those who are advocating for deletion didn't notice that part in the article,  .    DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though its the first of its type, it was a short lived type and the player doesn't seem to have notability in itself. I would suggest merging relevant information from the A1 into the article for HD-DVD.  It would be more accessible there as more people are likely to visit that article then a stub for the player.  Ejfetters (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't these all have seperate AFD's anyway? Its kinda like throwing in everything so the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. The way this is listed.. everyone has to specify out of the list which they think should stay and which not rather then just a keep or delete. I dont usually do AFD's. is this the norm? -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the way to list multiple related articles for deletion, see the process explanation that has been followed here at WP:AFD. It isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater, they are all listed for the exact same reason. Ejfetters (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

except for the fact that some have some degree of notability such as being the first player of a format and the first to break the generally accepted "affordable" price level in a market of mainly $500+ players at the time. but some have absolutly no notability and being just a general upgrade. so it appears to me they are not exactly the same issues in play with all of these. from afd- "However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." - "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not." maybe Im wrong -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles don't mention any of these things in the argument, they are nearly identical in format. Ejfetters (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am sure the A1 does not have notability to stand on its own, and I don't think it can stand on its own merit, the reason why I have bundled it with the others. We are getting away from the discussion about this AFD though, we should remain on topic with this AFD.  Ejfetters (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.