Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound BlasterAxx (2nd nomination)

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 merge‎ to Sound Blaster. Star Mississippi 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sound BlasterAxx

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable as a standalone product; merging to Sound Blaster might be appropriate alternative to deletion. ~T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Performing a WP:BEFORE search returns no RS. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does get some reviews in bigger technical websites[1][2][3][4][5][6] but there's very little here beyond run-of-the-mill coverage and no particular reason to keep the current content (which is largely copied from datasheets and press releases) as a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination, reviews found by Colapeninsula are good, but as they say, not evidence of separable notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, otherwise merge per nom. IMO the third-party reviews cited in this AFD and the previous one are sufficient to pass the GNG (edit: and also WP:NCORP/WP:PRODUCTREV, given their significance, depth and apparent independence). However, given particular problems of this article and the general problems of product articles, I would ordinarily still favor a merge. But the problem IMO is that Sound Blaster is already rather unwieldy and is getting into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. It seems like merging now is just going to make more work for future splitters, with no real benefit. (I wonder, though, if perhaps some sort of reconfiguration into a List of Sound Blaster USB products or some such, spinning off that entire L3 heading from Sound Blaster, might be better way to structure our coverage.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, agreeing with the assessment of potential sources by Colapeninsula that they are run-of-the-mill even if reliable and in-depth. SWinxy (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.