Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildlife Acoustics


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wildlife Acoustics

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Interesting but non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 I had been looking over the 'bat detector' page, preparing to do some editing to include better information about some of the more state of the art "full spectrum" detectors (such as those made by Wildlife Acoustics and Pettersson Elektronik). I am a bat researcher in the U.S., and have used many of the call recording & analysis systems available. When I found that the page for Wildlife Acoustics has been proposed for deletion, as "not notable" I posted comments to apparently the wrong place (talk) so am adding them here. I believe that the Wildlife Acoustics entry is notable, has publicly verifiable information and should remain a separate entry. This company's products are in use worldwide in wildlife bio-acoustic studies and surveys. I suspect that when the bio-acoustic and bat detector Wiki entries are updated & improved, then the significance of Wildlife Acoustics's contribution to state of the art technologies for bird and bat surveys will be more apparent. I am familiar with some non-industry sources, such as bat research and professional meeting presentation that have had discussions and evaluations of the products and technologies that are being developed by this outfit, including coverage in at least 3 formal presentations at the Western Bat Working Group 2011 meetings and articles in the  newsletters such as the one on page 20 of Western Canada Bat Network- Newsletter - Fall2009.Bigearedbatguy (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Bigearedbatguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Keep satisfies WP:GNG. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insisting that somebody provide "more than just a policy", when the policy itself sums up their position perfectly, is picayune. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not unreasonable to request that votes not consist of merely blue links to guidelines. Linking to WP:GNG without elaboration on the sources that enable this company to meet the guideline is unhelpful and does not carry any weight in a deletion discussion based on strength of argument. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've tried to locate reliable source coverage and keep turning up press releases and copies of the same. I haven't located any  significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies WP:GNG. Ianagranat (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC). See http://www.wildlifeacoustics.com/support-resources/publications listing over 30 references to verifiable on-line scientific and government publications and studies citing Wildlife Acoustics products used in research projects around the globe. — Ianagranat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I have taken a look at several of the references mentioned in the link provided by Ianagranat and have only found passing references to some of the products made by the company. I can not find any of those articles that focus on the company Wildlife Acoustics.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - New York Times coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/technology/circuits/30bird.html and if you Google for "Song Sleuth" you will find other references to the company's first product. The company is no longer in the consumer market and the content of this page is more appropriate to a more specialized audience in the bioacoustics research field, I hope more will chime in on its notability who are familiar with this field of research.  Another reference on the company from the Boston Globe http://tosci.posterous.com/got-my-mojo-workin-0 and http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/04/11/going_with_what_they_know/ Ianagranat (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Ianagranat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep satisfies WP:GNG.Bigearedbatguy
 * Comment Relevant information on the article from the CEO: .  ConcernedVancouverite (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 t*Keep here's enough to show the company notable  in its special field. that's all that is necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Truly, I feel most of WP:GNG is met, however I would like to see a larger description of the company themselves, enough emphasis has been put on the product, a strong introduction in my opinion helps clarify its notability. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no significant coverage of Wildlife Acoustics in reliable sources. That one of the company's products was reviewed in The New York Times does not warrant an article for this company. According to WP:PRODUCT, "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result" (my emphasis). The Boston Globe article discusses two entrepreneurs, one being Ian Agranat, the founder of this company. Most of the article focuses on the product of the company rather than the company itself. A Google News archive search returns only trivial mentions and press releases. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (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.