Scottywong (talk | contribs) |
Scottywong (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
*Please be advised that this AFD was [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27069&hl= recently linked] by the nominator at the [[Wikipedia Review]], expressing their concern that this AFD "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors" inviting "the attention of a few experienced editors". For your information. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
*Please be advised that this AFD was [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27069&hl= recently linked] by the nominator at the [[Wikipedia Review]], expressing their concern that this AFD "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors" inviting "the attention of a few experienced editors". For your information. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, and I also clearly stated that I was not looking for people who only share my opinion, nor did I even state my opinion or any of the details of what the AfD is about. There is no wrongdoing here per [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices]]. I feel this discussion could be moved along if a few experienced Wikipedians (which I don't necessarily consider myself one of) would weigh in with logical arguments (for either side of the argument) instead of gut reactions. [[User:Snottywong|Snottywong]] ([[User talk:Snottywong|talk]]) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
::Yes, and I also clearly stated that I was not looking for people who only share my opinion, nor did I even state my opinion or any of the details of what the AfD is about. There is no wrongdoing here per [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices]] and [[Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions]]. I feel this discussion could be moved along if a few experienced Wikipedians (which I don't necessarily consider myself one of) would weigh in with logical arguments (for either side of the argument) instead of gut reactions. [[User:Snottywong|Snottywong]] ([[User talk:Snottywong|talk]]) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:02, 27 October 2009
Bose stereo speakers
- Bose stereo speakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an AfD for multiple articles, all having to do with specific product lines offered by the Bose Corporation. None of these articles are notable enough to warrant a separate article. There are thousands of companies worldwide that create similar products, and there is no reason that Bose's specific products are more notable than any other company's nearly identical offerings. Additionally, these pages all read like an advertisement. Many of the pages are formatted in a similar way, including show/hide drop-downs that reveal "specifications" about each particular product, which often include the price of the product and its warranty details. Additionally, most of these pages include very long lists of past model numbers (with extremely brief or nonexistent descriptions) which are meaningless to anyone except Bose employees and extremely enthusiastic Bose fans. It's my opinion that most (if not all) of these pages were either created or purposely modified by the same person (or group of people) for the sole purpose of creating a Bose advertisement on WIkipedia. The encyclopedic content of each of these articles usually boils down to a sentence or two. These few sentences could easily be merged into the Bose Corporation article, or even into the article for that particular product type (for instance, Loudspeaker, Headphones, Home Cinema, etc). I would like to add that I personally do not have any ill will for Bose or its products (I actually own several Bose products), I just sincerely believe that these articles do not belong on Wikipedia. Snottywong (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
List of bundled articles nominated for deletion
- Keep. This company's technology is notable, as evidenced by the references included and by additional references which could be added after a Google News and Google Scholar search. If there is non-encyclopedic information in the article, it can be removed, but the presence of non-encyclopedic information is not in itself reason to delete an article. An article about a company's products need not be an advertisement, particularly when many of the products described in the article are no longer manufactured. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Did you actually look at the references or just count how many references were on the page? 95% of the references on these pages are either primary references (from Bose's website), copies of press releases on non-Bose sites, or user product reviews from sites like cnet.com. These are not reliable, independent, verifiable sources. These articles have received heavy criticism in the past for reading like advertisements, and these "references" were likely added to add a superficial appearance of legitimacy. Don't be tricked. Snottywong (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Having an article on "Bose stereo speakers" is like having an article on "Kenmore microwave ovens" or "Craftsman doorknobs". It's an article on one specific (and rather uninteresting) example of an extremely ubiquitous item. If you allow this article to remain, then you invite similar articles such as "JBL stereo speakers", "EAW stereo speakers", "Yamaha stereo speakers", "Sony stereo speakers", "Pyle stereo speakers", ad infinitum. Also, can you really say that you agree that there should be a "Bose headphones" article and a completely separate "Previous Bose headphones" article? In that case, let's add a few more articles to Wikipedia: "Sennheiser headphones", "Previous Sennheiser headphones", "Sony headphones", "Previous Sony headphones", "AKG headphones", "Previous AKG headphones", etc. And, if we allow "Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems", well then I'm going to Best Buy and I'm going to write an article on every different model of home entertainment system that they carry. Now do you see why these articles are inappropriate? Snottywong (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, no one is disputing whether the Bose Corporation itself is notable. We're disputing whether or not these individual product lines within the Bose corporation are notable enough to deserve their own articles. Snottywong (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Having an article on "Bose stereo speakers" is like having an article on "Kenmore microwave ovens" or "Craftsman doorknobs". It's an article on one specific (and rather uninteresting) example of an extremely ubiquitous item. If you allow this article to remain, then you invite similar articles such as "JBL stereo speakers", "EAW stereo speakers", "Yamaha stereo speakers", "Sony stereo speakers", "Pyle stereo speakers", ad infinitum. Also, can you really say that you agree that there should be a "Bose headphones" article and a completely separate "Previous Bose headphones" article? In that case, let's add a few more articles to Wikipedia: "Sennheiser headphones", "Previous Sennheiser headphones", "Sony headphones", "Previous Sony headphones", "AKG headphones", "Previous AKG headphones", etc. And, if we allow "Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems", well then I'm going to Best Buy and I'm going to write an article on every different model of home entertainment system that they carry. Now do you see why these articles are inappropriate? Snottywong (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Did you actually look at the references or just count how many references were on the page? 95% of the references on these pages are either primary references (from Bose's website), copies of press releases on non-Bose sites, or user product reviews from sites like cnet.com. These are not reliable, independent, verifiable sources. These articles have received heavy criticism in the past for reading like advertisements, and these "references" were likely added to add a superficial appearance of legitimacy. Don't be tricked. Snottywong (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. The reference I noticed the most was a scholarly article by an Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who happened to be the founder of the Bose company. For me, the question is whether a particular manufacturer did something particularly innovative, rather than something that was obvious to anyone working in the field. I do not pretend to know whether Sennheiser, Sony or AKG headphones or speakers qualify in that regard, but if they do, they are notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eastmain, if you can find multiple reliable, independent, verifiable sources that prove these particular Bose products were significantly more innovative than anything else out there on the market, then I will agree with you that these articles should stay. I can tell you right now that you won't find these articles. They're inexpensive consumer headphones that you can get at Best Buy or Circuit City. Now, there is a lot of hype out there about some of these products (like the wave radio), but that is primarily a result of Bose's significant PR efforts (which is why every "source" you find is either from a Bose website, a regurgitated Bose ad or press release, or a user product review). Snottywong (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. These articles, all of them, are about product lines that need no more mention than an insertion into the Bose Corporation article a couple of lines saying this product won this award, and that product won that award. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Merge - none of these are notable by themselves. Can someone please volunteer to merge them into one article? Bearian (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I say that would be the existing Bose Corporation article as opposed to any notional Bose Corporation products article. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am available to merge the notable content of these articles into the Bose Corporation article, should that be the decision of the admin reviewing this case. Snottywong (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I have done a lot of recent editing to these pages. I have use the Apple pages as my guideline and I have very slowly tried to bring them to that caliber, but real life does get in the way
currently the basis for inclusion in wikipedia is simple If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. So lets see the sources that are currently listed:
- Professional Pilot Magazine (2004 Headset Preference Survey, Dec p 80) where the Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by a consumer survey 4 years in a Row from 2000 to 2004
- Aviation Headset Series II is introduced in 1995 with improvements for the aviation industry, earning the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s (AOPA) “Product of the Year” award.
- "next to an elderly woman who plugged her sound-killing Bose headphones into a Sony discman," Mortal Prey by John Sandford;
- Critical Conditions by Stephen White but page is restricted and can't be read.
- A www.a9.com search on books also turns up this gem: "Grabbing her iPod, she lay down on the bed, put on her Bose headphones, and began listening to Eminem at full volume,"
- Jackie Collins, and "search inside this book" for "Bose headphones."
- "Ethan was one of Don's pals, with multiple facial piercings and a set of Bose headphones."
- Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson.
- ...of Bose triport headphones. They go on SALE back home for $140 and were on the rack here in the desert for $93. Woohoo! The PX also has an awesome... google books Surviving Twilight: A Soldier's Chronicle of Daily Life in Iraq
- Active Sound and Vibration Control by Osman Tokhi and Sandor Veres 2002 (ISBN 0852960387) p. 13
- Austen, Ian. "When Headphones Measure Up to the Music." The New York Times, October 31, 2002, p. G4. The competitive product was a Sennheiser HD 497, which "like the Bose Triport... deliberately leaks some frequencies to balance the sound."
Here are some reviews of just some of the products talked about (I didint have time to flesh all of them out...)
- Noise Cancelling Headphones
- google "bose quietcomfort review" - 138,000 hits Google Books "bose headphones" Google Books "quietcomfort" cnet australia QC2 pcmag QC3 pcmag QC2 crutchfieldadvisor QC2 thetravelinsider QC1 thetravelinsider QC2 playlistmag QC2 thetechzone QC2 digitaltrends QC2 adrians rojak pot QC1 cnet QC2 cnet QC3 Bose unveils new QuietComfort 15 Headphones Bose Quietly Updates Its QuietComfort Noise-Canceling Headphones (With Ears-On) Bose Improves, Replaces QuietComfort 2 Headphones
- Audio Headphones
- Aviation Headphones
- CineMate
- Lifestyle
- 321
- "bose 321 review" - 92,400 hits Bose 3-2-1 GS Series II (graphite) Home Theater System reviews C|NET Review - Bose 321 Home Entertainment System Bose 321 GS DVD System Review and User Opinions Bose 321 Home Entertainment System Reviews ZDNet - Bose 3-2-1 GS Series I C|NET Review - Bose 3-2-1 GS Series II C|NET Video Review - Bose 3-2-1 GS Series II ElectronicsMe Review - 321GSX III 321 Series I review 321GS series I review 321 Series II review 321GS series II review 321GS series II review 321GSX review
- Wave
- Acoustimass
- SoundLink
- "bose soundlink review" - 38,000 hits Bose SoundLink is like their iPod dock with out the dock part Bose SoundLink Wireless Music System streams music from your PC to a portable speaker for $550 Bose SoundLink has Bluetooth inside Bose hops on the wireless streaming bandwagon Bose SoundLink wireless music system goes on sale today 2ND Bose Tabletop System Gets Wireless PC Streaming
- Computer Speakers
- SoundDock
- Stereo Speakers
What about awards?
- 1999
- 1999 Best of What's New Award - Popular Science - Lifestyle 40& 50
- 2000 to 2005 Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by Professional Pilot magazine's headset preference survey five years in a row!
- 2001
- 2001 Red Dot Award for Product Design - Lifestyle 50
- 2002
- 2002 "Hi-Fi grand prix award" for Home-Theater-In-a-Box Systems - Lifestyle 50
- 2003
- 2003 Red Dot Award for product design for 321 series 1
- 2003 AudioVideo International "Hi-Fi Grand Prix Award" - Lifestyle 35 series I
- 2004
- 2004 Fortune Magazine's Best Products of 2004 - SoundDock series I
- 2004 Number 1 Must have Gadget of 2004 - SoundDock series I
- 2004 Red Dot Award for product design on QuietComfort 2
- 2004 EH Publishing one of the Best Products of the Year for the Lifestyle 48
- 2004 Sound and Vision magazine Reviewer's Choice Award for the Lifestyle 38
- 2005
- 2005 "Product of the Year" - Electronic House
- 2005 Red Dot award for product design - SoundDock series I
- 2005 Potentials Magazine one of the "Best Products of 2005" - 321GSII
- 2006
- 2006 MacUser's Audio of the Year award - SoundDock series I
- 2006 QuietComfort 3 were the first headphones to receive a Sound & Vision Editor's Choice award.
- 2006 Potentials Magazine Gold Star Award for the QuietComfort 3
- 2006 AudioVideo International "Hi-Fi Grand Prix Award" for the Lifestyle 48
- 2007
- 2007 FreeSpace 51 - Consumers Digest Best Buy
- 2007 Red Dot Award for product design on QuietComfort 3]
- 2008
- Bose Corporation Receives Design Team of the Year Red Dot Award - a title regarded as the highest distinction in the design world.
- 2008 Red Dot Award for product design - SoundDock Portable
- 2008 Red Dot Best of the Best - Lifestyle V30
- 2008 Red Dot Award for Product Design - Lifestyle V30
- 2008 Red Dot Award for product design - On-Ear Headphones
I would assume that if people are making fake products that would also make them notable:
- google "Fake bose"
- how to spot a fake bose qc3?
- fakeheadphones.com » Fake Bose IE’s Flooding The Market:
- China city is haven for fake Fram, bogus Bose.
- Those fake BOSE Noise Reduction headsets]
- Keepin' it real fake, part XVI: Greenhouse's Bose-like GH-SPA-430 dock
- YouTube - Linear Array - Line Array - Fake Bose L1 PAS Part 6 of 6
Or what about third parties making accessories specifically for Bose?
- Delphi SKYFi3 XM Radio Receiver with Bose Wave Kit SA10219
- Swarovski Crystal Bose Headphones: $409 Worth Of Bling
- Dock Input Cable
- DockRadio
- UFlyMike
Or how about people taking these things apart or adding to them?
Currently on wikipedia there are these articles related to Apple Products, (I have included the templates to make my life easier):
I hope that I made my case clear. These subjects are notable and have a right to be included. The articles just need some wikiediting to get them upto the standard that the iPod, Xbox 360, Gdium, DBox2, PlayStation 3, CherryPal, Pioneer BDR-101A, GP2X Wiz, Daewoo Espero, iLiad, Toyota Noah, Neo 1973, Samsung I7500, Buffalo AirStation, Skytone_Alpha-400, Killer NIC and Lexus RX Hybrid has set on Wikipedia :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Phoenix, I whole-heartedly disagree with your reasoning. I understand you are the primary contributor to this article and that you have put a lot of work into these articles. That, however, doesn't make them notable. I think that you fundamentally misunderstand what a source is. Sourced articles "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Nothing against the sources you've mentioned, but I don't think Professional Pilot Magazine has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article in Fortune magazine entitled "26 must-have gadgets" is not a source. It's an advertisement in a magazine posing as an article (similar to the WP pages we're discussing here). And, I'll leave it to you to tell me why Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson is a source for your Bose articles.
- None of the links you've provided above are a source. Product reviews prove that the product exists, but that's all they do. They're just advertisements. The one source that comes the closest to being a real source is the Active Sound and Vibration Control by Osman Tokhi and Sandor Veres. However, when you go to page 13, you see that Bose is mentioned in a single sentence, letting us know that Bose offers active headphones for sale. The only thing that source tells us is that Bose sells headphones. It does not prove that Bose's headphones in particular are notable enough to deserve their own WP article. Do Bose headphones deserve a mention on the Bose Corporation article? Absolutely. Their own article? No.
- You compare your articles to a long list of articles on Apple products. What you fail to realize is that Apple has a long list of products that are unique and one-of-a-kind. iPod, iPhone, iMac all had no precedent, and were all technological revolutions. This makes them notable. Run-of-the-mill computer speakers or home theater stereo systems are ubiquitous, and therefore are not even close to notable. Also, take a look at the references list on the iPod article. There are almost 100 references, including patents and articles from reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are not simply a long list of product reviews on cnet. Snottywong (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Provide a list of two or three real references from truly independent, reliable, fact-checked, accurate sources of which the primary topic is "Bose computer speakers" or "Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems" (or something similar). Ensure that these articles are not just regurgitated Bose PR advertisements in an obscure magazine. Ensure that these articles from reliable sources clearly establish why these products are unique, revolutionary, inspirational, or otherwise notable or significantly different from the vast sea of other companies' computer speaker and home entertainment system offerings. Produce these sources and I will cede my argument. I assert that no such articles exist. The burden of proof is yours. Snottywong (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have little time to comment so I will be brief this time. But is your argument that C|Net is NOT a " reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If you check them I believe that you will see that it is exactly that! Oh I do understand collapsing some of my convo into a hidden box.... But not everything! Please allow my hours of work to be read by others, thanks! -- Phoenix (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that product reviews on cnet.com establish notability? If that's the case, then I will begin the process of creating a WP article on every product that has a review on cnet. I'm still waiting to see two or three real references that establish the notability of each individual product group that you've created an article for. The incredibly long and borderline disruptive list of irrelevant links you've copied and pasted above don't include any real sources that establish notability, as far as I can tell. Most of the above links establish the fact that the products exist, nothing more. You haven't provided any evidence that these products need more than a brief mention within the Bose Corporation article, with a brief description of what they are and any awards they may have won. Snottywong (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have little time to comment so I will be brief this time. But is your argument that C|Net is NOT a " reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If you check them I believe that you will see that it is exactly that! Oh I do understand collapsing some of my convo into a hidden box.... But not everything! Please allow my hours of work to be read by others, thanks! -- Phoenix (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Provide a list of two or three real references from truly independent, reliable, fact-checked, accurate sources of which the primary topic is "Bose computer speakers" or "Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems" (or something similar). Ensure that these articles are not just regurgitated Bose PR advertisements in an obscure magazine. Ensure that these articles from reliable sources clearly establish why these products are unique, revolutionary, inspirational, or otherwise notable or significantly different from the vast sea of other companies' computer speaker and home entertainment system offerings. Produce these sources and I will cede my argument. I assert that no such articles exist. The burden of proof is yours. Snottywong (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bose wave systems at least
- As far as the "wave" products go, these are highly notable as one of Bose's flagship products with some "magic" technology. They are widely advertised, high-priced and rarely discussed, leading to a situation where WP readers are in need of encyclopedic coverage of them that objectively and WP:NPOV explains just what it is they're buying.
- If there really is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then of course delete them, according to policy. However I find that unbelievable (although it's not my field of knowledge, so I don't know of them myself). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, if you don't know whether there is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then it is your responsibility to go find out before voting whether to keep or delete these articles. Snottywong (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately we work by consensus, not by voting. Nor do I appreciate your implication that it's suddenly my responsibility to fix any article you've taken a dislike to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never said or implied that it's your responsibility to fix any article that I personally dislike. This AfD was started because of a question of whether or not these articles are notable enough to deserve their own articles. There are clear standards on the definition of the word notable. I simply said that anyone who is putting forth an opinion on an AfD should, first of all, fully understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and second of all, should do the research to ascertain for themselves whether or not the articles are notable according to that definition. Your opinion above is essentially a "gut reaction" as to whether or not the subject is notable, and you even admit that you don't know if there are any reliable sources. No one is disputing that the Bose Corporation is notable. What we're arguing about here is whether not specific product lines within the Bose Corporation are actually notable enough to deserve their own articles. No one is forcing you to vote on AfD's, but if you choose to vote, I'm just asking that you do the work required to come to an informed opinion. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately we work by consensus, not by voting. Nor do I appreciate your implication that it's suddenly my responsibility to fix any article you've taken a dislike to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, if you don't know whether there is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then it is your responsibility to go find out before voting whether to keep or delete these articles. Snottywong (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The argument that the Wave line is rarely discussed seems to me to be an argument against notability. If the line is rarely discussed, then why bother having an article devoted to it? Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. If this AfD concludes that the product pages are to be deleted or merged, then Template:Bose will no longer serve any purpose. In that case, I will propose it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I wanted to add the template to this AfD, but templates are deleted using a different process (the AfD template doesn't work in a template namespace). If the admin reviewing this case decides to delete or merge these pages, then we should be able to either speedily delete the template (for lack of potential usage) or start a TfD if someone opposes the speedy delete. Snottywong (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Merge into the primary Bose Corporation article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please be advised that this AFD was recently linked by the nominator at the Wikipedia Review, expressing their concern that this AFD "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors" inviting "the attention of a few experienced editors". For your information. –xenotalk 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and I also clearly stated that I was not looking for people who only share my opinion, nor did I even state my opinion or any of the details of what the AfD is about. There is no wrongdoing here per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices and Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions. I feel this discussion could be moved along if a few experienced Wikipedians (which I don't necessarily consider myself one of) would weigh in with logical arguments (for either side of the argument) instead of gut reactions. Snottywong (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)