Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:55, 5 December 2006

Pear Cable Audio Cables

Somewhat procedural. This had a previous AfD closed with a speedy, and then an inappropriate G4. The author was told to bring it to DRV, DRV stuff is supposed to go to AfD if overturned, the claims of notability weren't uncontroversial, I don't think, so here we are. Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an obvious speedy spam this time, but still not a good article. Danny Lilithborne 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the one who reposted the article, so obviously I believe it should stay in wikipedia, however I wanted to restate the reasons why:
- Corporations are permited to have articles in wikipedia so long as they are not advertisements, and the companies are notable.
- The article is very carefully written to avoid reading as an advertisement. If people feel that the article is not good (see above), it can have more information added if removed from the AfD. Things are kept to a minimum to eliminate controversy for now.
- The company is notable as proven by 3 links pertaining to notability in the article. One is to an award granted by the SEMA organization which is the association for the $34 Billion/year aftermarket automotive industry. The other 2 are fully independent publications dedicated to reviewing high fidelity audio equipment. It should be noted that Pear Cable Audio Cables has never advertised in either of the 2 review publications. If according to WP:CORP a restaurant is notable because "Many people independent of the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms have published their own accounts of eating there", then certainly these references should qualify.Apblake 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a directory, and no, permission does not come into it at all. Corporations are not "permited" to have articles in wikipedia so long as they are not advertisements. Notability has to be proven. Please refer to WP:NN and User:Uncle G/On notability. Ohconfucius 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its not spam, but I don't find it to be notable. The first source is a trade association. Big deal. The second doesn't even appear to be in English but looks like specs and a price so it could be a catalog site. The third is some random feedback webpage. Montco 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The trade association that you don't feel is notable (SEMA) hosts what is probably the largest automotive aftermarket show in the world every year in Las Vegas attracting well over 100,000 industry only visitors from over 100 countries. If restaurant reviews qualify, recognition from this organization should certainly qualify. The second is a review from an Italian High-end audio publication. More specifically, Pear Cable Audio Cables won a competition comparing 24 different cables. Please use a translator if this is not clear. VideoHiFi is most certainly not a catalog site. The third source is not a "random feedback" webpage. It is a well respected audio review publication who's name "positive feedback" is a play on words. It has been available in both print and web versions over the years.Apblake 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. --Core desat 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an audiophile I have heared of this company in passing but realistically there is nothing posted that shows this as a keeper. Leave the Italian review for the italian version of Wikipedia (and to be honest, translated, it still sounds like a sales pitch). The SEMA award doesn't really mean anything. Looking at that list proves nothing, other than there are literally hundreds of products which received the same exact 'award' for the same exact show. The positive-feedback article is a nice start, though lacking any other sources this wikipedia page just isn't going anywhere (and it isn't my 'job' to add info. If you want to have the page kept, then you need to do the leg work and add information.) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on notability. I would like to politely urge people to consider the notability requirement in WP:CORP very carefully. Multiple independent non-trivial writings must be referenced. It cannot be argued that the sources that are provided are independent. There are definitely multiple sources provided. Non-trivial is really the only remaining hurdle to clear. In describing what IS trivial, WP:CORP says that a media reprint of a press release is trivial. None of the sources provided are reprints of press releases (This cannot be questioned if they articles are examined). The other examples given of trivial sources, are "newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". The sources provided are significantly more notable than an extended shopping hours note. Really the only thing left is whether or not the sources themselves are trivial. Again, I believe that the sources provided easily pass this hurdle. People who know the automotive industry know who SEMA is. People into high-end audio know who Positive Feedback online is, and VideoHiFi is yet another prolific audio review publication that while lesser known in the US, is well known in Itlay. The examples given in WP:CORP for notable sources are "Palo Alto Weekly" and "Many people" who "have published their own accounts of eating there". I have never heard of "Palo Alto Weekly", but that does not make it trivial. The other examples given for a restaurant suggest that just an individual publishing a restaurant review should qualify.
If Pear Cable Audio Cables fails the notability test, then I believe that many of the other companies listed on the High-end audio page also fail this test. Just a couple of examples would be: Audio-Technica, Accuphase, Clear Audio, Anthony DeMaria Labs, Nordost, and Tara Labs.
On a final note, I would like to put in a personal opinion about the value of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has virtually no value if it trys to emulate a traditional print encyclopedia. Its strength comes from having a large amount of information that trys to maintain accuracy thru the constant review of the general public. While advertising and inaccurate information does not help Wikipedia, that is not what the Pear Cable Audio Cables article is accused of. Trying to remove a page that is accurate and does not advertise is counterproductive and serves to limit the utility of Wikipedia.Apblake 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to disagree with that. For instance, I exist. I can easily verify my existence, and should I choose to release my school records, I could easily verify the claims I would want to make, namely my accomplishments in school. I am also good enough at avoiding biased writing when I need to that advertisement would not be an issue. But I still shouldn't get an article, because this is an encyclopedia, not a source of info for absolutely anything you would ever want to look up. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still doesn't establish notability as a player in the electronics or wire & cable industry. "High-end" audio "in universe" publications are basically going to mention every tidbit that happens in or is offered in that hobby, same way Model Railroader is going to mention every company that sells scale-model track spikes, because that's what their readers want. So, in context, the mentions can barely be considered non-trivial. The Italian page lists no less than 24 companies that assemble cables for this market, Pear Cable is just one, and is not the subject of the article. Some of the other companies that Apblake mentions probably ought to go bye-bye too, but equating this company's notability with companies like Audio-Technica is a stretch. Lastly, there is the issue of WP:COI as according to the PF article, Apblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the principals of the company, although that's mitigated somewhat by the article itself not being excessively self-promoting or spammy. Tubezone 10:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Audio-Technica, 26 hits; Accuphase, 352 hits; Clear Audio, 265 hits; Anthony DeMaria Labs, 0 hits; Nordost, 487 hits and Tara Labs, 210 hits; Pear Audio, 0 hits or 0 hits. Ohconfucius 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're using Stereophile's search, if I Google "Audio Technica" in quotes, I get 3,160,000 ghits.... plus half a dozen spamlinks on the side for folks wanting to sell me Audio Technica stuff. "Pear Cable" gets about 9,000, minus Wiki mirrors and the usual directory entries, that doesn't leave much. Tubezone 10:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was indeed using Stereophile's search. I would agree that a lot more people would have heard about AT, as it's more mass-market than high-end. Pear claims to be an audiophile brand, so Stereophile's a legitimate and possibly a more relevant database search. BTW, my vote is Delete. Ohconfucius 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I agree if you want to know a product's relative notoriety, ahem, notability within the high-end audio sphere, the Stereophile search is more indicative than Google. However it makes AT look non-notable, most likely because the Stereophile crowd considers AT somewhat pedestrian. I'm not sure if being notable within that clique, or group, if you will, really qualifies a product or company as notable for Wikipedia purposes. Pear is a wire & cable assembler, so I think it should be measured per its notability in that industry. That's just my opinion. Tubezone 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another company/product. I don't see what makes this notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Respectfully, I truly fail to see any specific reason why, according to WP:CORP, Mavalli Tiffin Rooms restaurant is notable for having "Many people independent of the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms have published their own accounts of eating there" but Pear Cable Audio Cables is not when 2 independent publications have published reviews of listening to Pear Cable Audio Cables. High-end audio publications are not more trivial than people who have eaten at Mavalli Tiffin Rooms. High-end audio reviews are not more trivial than a person publishing there dining experience at a restaurant.Apblake 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, Apblake, try reading WP:INN. We aren't discussing Mavalii Tiffin rooms. I don't see any 'publications'. I see some not notable website saying they're good. I see some italian website saying, imagine that, the same thing. And I see an 'award' given out by a organization that even states it gives awards to members. I don't see any press coverage. I don't see any sites saying "X Big Event used Y". I get no hits on Google News. The piece reads like an ad. WP:CORP is pretty specific. So is WP:V, as well as the notability guidelines in general, and WP:RS. This fails all of them. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to WP:INN, I am using Mavalii Tiffin Rooms as an example of how to determine notability because this is the example given in WP:CORP. It is supposed to be used as an example of how to determine notability.
- With regards to Positive Feedback Online: This is a legitimate publication. Here is a link to the Masthead [1] that WP:RS calls for. Here is a link to their editorial philosophy [2], also as WP:RS calls for.
- With regards to VideoHiFi: This is also a legitimate publication. Here is a link to their masthead [3]. The individual responsible for the Pear Cable Audio Cables review is Dr. Francesco Bollorino who is on the staff of the The Department of Psychiatric Sciences for the University of Genoa in Italy. He in fact is a well respected scholar. The University of Genoa lists him as staff on this webpage: [4]. He is also the editor of "POL.it Psychiatry on line Italia" which lists his biography (in Italian) here: [5]
- With regards to SEMA, it is a well respected Automotive organization. Here is a link to a website that Car Crazy (a well known automotive TV show) has dedicated to covering SEMA: [6] The Discovery Channel's TLC will be airing a 1 hour TV special all about this years SEMA show (that Pear Cable Audio Cables won an award at). It will first air Dec. 5th at 8pm. TLC calls the SEMA show "the world's greatest car show". This information can be verified here: [7] So, again, I do not believe that "the world's greatest car show" gives out frivolous awards. The judge who selected Pear Cable Audio Cables for the SEMA award is Alejandro Flores, as shown on this webpage: [8]. Alejandro Flores is the responsible editor of a number of Mexican auto magazines as shown on this website: [9](click on "contacto")Apblake 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by my previous comments on the worthiness of those publications for determining notability, but I'd like to ask you a question...

Are you sure you want this article? Bear in mind you will have no control over the content, rather, the content is based on the consent and consensus of the editors, there's no guarantee that their take on your company and its products is going to be what you'd like to see. Also, contributions and content are licensed under the GFDL, and are not copyright. Let's put it this way, even if this article were to stay (which seems unlikely) how the resulting article will evolve is not predictable, and anyone will be able to copy it. Tubezone 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) An article from a psychiatry professor about car audio cables as a reliable source about as plausible as a professor of music commenting on the space shuttle and saying he's an expert. WP:RS requires a LOT more than a masthead. You've managed to prove SEMA is notable, but it's a huge stretch to suggest that any of the companies who got a SEMA award are notable. Your other two links still fail WP:RS and, quite frankly, I fail to see the point of many of these corporate articles. They don't educate. They aren't encyclopedic. All they are is an ad and a weblink. The article claims that the cables reduce static friction -- how? If you want to have an article here be taken seriously -- particularly one that is being unanimously voted to delete since you have nothing to support it -- then you should WRITE an article that can be taken seriously. If these are the only sources you can find to assert it's notability then I'm sorry but it doesn't belong, in my opinion. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just do not see where users are getting their definition of trivial. WP:CORP defines 2 types of trivial coverage. The first type is a reprint of a company press release. Here is a link to recent Pear Cable Audio Cables media coverage that would be classified as this type of trivial coverage: [10]. The previous link is clearly "trivial" as a wikipedia source since it is based primarily on a Press Release. None of the sources that are quoted in the article in question are of this type. The 2nd type of trivial coverage is an article that reports "extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". SHOPPING HOURS!!!!! Awards and reviews are not even close to shopping hours. So, the question remains; where are users getting their definition of trivial from?Apblake 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ::Are you '''''sure''''' you want this article? Bear in mind you will have no control over the content, rather, the content is based on the consent and consensus of the editors, there's no guarantee that their take on your company and its products is going to be what you'd like to see. Also, contributions and content are licensed under the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]], and are not copyright. Let's put it this way, even if this article were to stay (which seems unlikely) how the resulting article will evolve is not predictable, and anyone will be able to copy it.  [[User:Tubezone|Tubezone]] 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 ::: (sigh) An article from a ''psychiatry'' professor about ''car audio cables'' as a reliable source about as plausible as a ''professor of music'' commenting on ''the space shuttle'' and saying he's an expert. WP:RS requires a LOT more than a masthead. You've managed to prove SEMA is notable, but it's a huge stretch to suggest that any of the companies who got a SEMA award are notable. Your other two links still fail [[WP:RS]] and, quite frankly, I fail to see the point of many of these corporate articles. They don't educate. They aren't encyclopedic. All they are is an ad and a weblink. The article claims that the cables reduce static friction -- how? If you want to have an article here be taken seriously -- particularly one that is being unanimously voted to delete since you have nothing to support it -- then you should WRITE an article that can be taken seriously. If these are the only sources you can find to assert it's notability then I'm sorry but it doesn't belong, ''in my opinion''. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|[[User:Elaragirl/EditCount|Count]]</sup></small></font> 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' I just do not see where users are getting their definition of trivial.  [[WP:CORP]] defines 2 types of trivial coverage.  The first type is a reprint of a company press release.  Here is a link to recent Pear Cable Audio Cables media coverage that would be classified as this type of trivial coverage: [http://www.me-mag.com/installercentral/installer_news_body.cfm?nid=840].  The previous link is clearly "trivial" as a wikipedia source since it is based primarily on a Press Release.  None of the sources that are quoted in the article in question are of this type.  The 2nd type of trivial coverage is an article that reports "extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories".  SHOPPING HOURS!!!!!  Awards and reviews are not even close to shopping hours.  So, the question remains; where are users getting their definition of trivial from?[[User:Apblake|Apblake]] 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)