Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volko Audio


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | express _ 18:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Volko Audio

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD.Deletion review/Log/2012 March 30 decided to send it to AfD instead, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotion by an internet-based company.  No sign of nearly meeting WP:CORP.  No sign of any *independent* sources.  No mainspace incoming links.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some independent sources. (Asaglam (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC))
 * I am dubious as to the independence of the added sources. They read like product release notes, and look to be more like sponsored if not paid advertising.  More subtly, they do not review the subject, but announce it, and thus they are not secondary sources.  Assuming that you can find some independed coverage of this subject, to improve the article, it would help to explain what a "virtual instrument" is (as this is supposedly the first, and indeed, maybe that is a better article to attept to write first, and to discuss the subject in terms of other subjects already in the encyclopedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kvr Audio is a reliable, known, notable and independent site in the professional audio sector which contains almost all the firms and products in the pro-audio field. It can be considered as a secondary source because it generalizes the information about products to the whole audience. Your opinion about the virtual instrument article is right. It is a good idea to improve that article more in the future.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaglam (talk • contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP. While I did vote at DRV to give this article a second look, on close inspection it clearly doesn't pass our guidelines. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me if this article doesn't pass your guidelines, how did this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments) pass? (Asaglam (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC))
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And that's hardly a good comparison anyway.  Native instruments is large, well-known, with numerous products which themselves are notable enough for articles and, most importantly, reliable sourcing isn't an issue for NI.  What you're asking is essentially like "Why does Coca-Cola get an article and my kids' lemonade stand doesn't?" Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right about the size of the companies but I wanted to ask you because Native Instruments didn't invent anything. For example Steinberg invented some industry standards. From this point of view Volko Audio created a first thing in an industry and they deserve to be in here. (Asaglam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Improved the article: I have added some new secondary sources and information to the article. I think this version will change your opinion. (Asaglam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Keep The added sources are sufficient to reasonably show notability. ( It is always possible to question whether sources such as these are truly independent; what seems to happen here in practice, if one thinks the subject notable, or more generally if one wishes to keep the articles, one decides they are, if not, one decides otherwise; our criteria may sound objective, but they are not--it is a matter of interpretation. And in matters of interpretation, people interpret as they wish to; it is possible to make any amount of argument, but what really happens is that one decides holistically first, and then finds the arguments. In many cases where I've argued for delete, I could have almost equally well have  argued for keep if that's the conclusion I had wanted to come to. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 April 2012‎
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep probably meets WP:NCORP:. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Current sources are about products and contain only passing mentions of the corp. The links provided by trevj do not provide any depth of coverage of Volko Audio and they are not reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH, especially when you consider the source's audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep—The KVR sources are product release announcements, not indicative of notability. But the two foreign-language reviews are in published magazines, in depth, and meet the WP:GNG: non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Niche sources are still sources and the fact that they are "industry" or highly targeted doesn't reduce their weight, as long as they are independent, which these both seem to be.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:20, 17 April 2012 (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.