Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waves 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   keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Waves Audio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no sources and appears to be primarily advertising created by the company. The few citations provided are to their own press releases and website. Warning was given nearly 5 years ago and this article has become more advertising since.

Searching for the company in Google News yields almost no reliable sources. It maybe be possible a small 1 paragraph entry could be worthwhile, but as it stands now this article is purely advertising. Beakermeep (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note I started this discussion as I was unsure if deletion or something else like blanking out the page would be better and how to do that (without being reverted by a bot). I am unsure the best course of action, so help would be appreciated.Beakermeep (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Blanking out the page could be considered as a deletion request only if whoever does it is the only major contributor to the article, which is not the case here. If it was, a better option (than blanking) would have been to mark the page for speedy deletion under the G7 criteria, so I can say that what you did was most appropriate. Smtchahal (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No coverage in reliable, independent sources. A Google search gives nothing useful. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Smtchahal (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving to Keep, per Blinksternet. Someone would need to add those sources, though. Smtchahal (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 *  Soft Keep Keep This company is definitely noteworthy but I agree the article is shameful and reliable sources are pretty sparse. The article should certainly be pared down...a lot. Radiodef (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to this, Waves does have a technology Grammy: . The WP article does a bad job of including this. If I have time I will edit that. But anyway they are notable in the sound tech circuit. Radiodef (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I could agree with this. Just would want advice on how to proceed.  Should I withdraw the nom and remove 80-90% of the content?  The last time I removed a large amount of unsourced content I ended up fighting with a bot and some spam vigilante (they meant well but they didnt read the talk page).  Also thank you for the refs  Beakermeep (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed a pretty sizable amount of content a few days ago and so far the edits still stand. I'm not sure you can withdraw a nomination and some others sided with deletion anyway. The relisting is ending soon so I suppose we'll see if there's a decision and proceed from there if it's not a delete. Radiodef (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed my stance to a regular keep, per Binksternet and improvements made to the article. Radiodef (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Company is notable based on Grammy and references included in article. The article hurts my eyes but that's not a reason to delete it. I will try to contribute to cleaning it up. ~KvnG 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only an otiose ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
 * We don't delete ads if they're trying to cover a notable subject. Do you have anything to say about notability? ~KvnG 15:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, notability is insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current abysmal state of the article is not a reason for deletion. The topic is notable because of the Grammy and because there is a lot of coverage in instruction books. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How to Make It in the New Music Business, by Robert Wolff, Random House, 2010. Three pages are dedicated to a description of Waves Audio products.
 * The Mastering Engineer's Handbook, pages 15, 24, 25, 113, 180, 185, 204, 216, 233, 250. Author Bobby Owsinski says Waves Audio L1 Ultramaximizer is one of the two top compressors for mastering. Owsinski names five top mastering engineers who use Waves plugins.
 * Waves Plug-Ins Workshop: Mixing by the Bundle, by Barry Wood, Cengage Learning, 2012. The whole book.
 * PC Recording Studios For Dummies, by Jeff Strong, John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Page 307 is devoted to Waves Audio plugins.
 * Access to Knowledge for Consumers: Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008-2010, pages 179–182. Discussion of a legal case of software piracy involving Waves Audio in Israel.
 * Digital Audio Workstation, by Colby Leider, McGraw Hill Professional, 2004. Page 227 discusses plug-ins from Waves Audio.
 * FYI, I am a professional audio engineer working at live events. I have never used Waves Audio plug-ins, but I am very much aware of their widespread use by others in the audio industry, especially in studios. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The professional magazine Sound On Sound has reviewed Waves Audio products many times. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Waves NS1, December 2012.
 * Waves iGTR – Personal Guitar Processor, April 2008.
 * Waves Master Bundle, August 2002.
 * Waves Y56K, May 2002.
 * Waves Audio Track – TDM Plug-in, May 1997.


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's got more than a couple of references and seems to be notable. Maybe a bit of cleanup to keep it NPOV, but certainly seems like a keeper. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:36, 3 March 2014 (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.