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 delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule speaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has remained unsourced since its creation in January 2013. Most sources refer to X-mini but my redirect to that page has been reverted. Just Chilling (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - Redirect.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand or Redirect, after discussion. If you look at WP:BRD, you'll see that it's Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Delete. This could so much more simply have been discussed at the article talk: page first.
• Comment - Are Capsule speakers notable? I'm unsure, as I commented last night. It comes down to whether the article scope is that of a generic term, or a named product. Clearly you see it as the brandname for X-mini and rightly redirected it there. But are X-mini themselves notable, or do they simply fail WP:MILL? I've never heard of them. Did they innovate the (generic) capsule speaker? Are they notably large manufacturers of it? Do they quietly make all the branded capsule speakers for a household-name brand? I don't know, but if they don't do one of those, I'd be inclined to AfD that article (We're an encyclopedia, not a business directory. A generic concept trumps a brand, in encyclopedic terms.) Are capsule speakers (in the generic sense) notable? I'd say yes, although the best article name could be debated too. A few years ago, no-one had such a thing. Now they're everywhere. Small children demand one for Christmas. Driven by the advent of the iPod, the MP3 player and the smartphone (all internally huge in data terms, but still physically small) it's now a commonplace need to have encapsulated speaker-amplifiers. There are a myriad brands of these. They depend on the technical innovation of Class-T amplifiers to work, they offer Bluetooth connectivity (after twenty years, finally a use for Bluetooth!), some have magnetic pickups to work from any tiny-speaker devices. They're even incorporating Li-po battery technology and USB-as-a-generic-power-socket to become energy stores and charging docks for smaller devices. But are they called 'capsule speakers' and do we already have their article elsewhere? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, your edit summary was "Restore article. Possibly delete (although I would see them as notable), but we can't imply that their only source is one minor brand." Since you apparently wished to consider deletion then here at AfD is the only viable forum to discuss it. I have added 'Redirect' to my nomination, as my preference, for clarification - redirects are cheap and this would be a useful search term. However, if it is considered a notable term but no-one is presently prepared to expand it then there is a WP:RED argument for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - The opening line reads "A capsule speaker is a small self-powered auxiliary loudspeaker." So then merge it with Loudspeaker because there isn't enough content for this "capsule speaker" to be a stand-alone article. Whether or not capsule speakers are notable shouldn't be a question. This page should not have been created by itself unless there was going to be more content added to it immediately after it was created. Horizonlove (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope - sorry, but we can't merge because that sentence is unsourced {and I haven't been able to source it). Just Chilling (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should just be deleted. Horizonlove (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Draftify. 6 years old and still one line that is unreferenced. I would have "draftified" this (or put up as an A7 given no claim regarding notability). In terms of WP:BEFORE, I only see references to Capsule speakers with the X-mini speaker products. Outside of being name checked in X-mini speaker product reviews, no WP:SIGCOV showing any kind of independent inherent notability; probably why the article reamined unreferenced for so long. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As far as I can find, the term "capsule speaker" is only ever used in context of a single line of products from X-mini. It is not a widely accepted term for any type of speaker outside of that one brand. At the very most, it could be turned into a redirect to the main X-mini page, but as this appears to be nothing but an unnotable attempt at a WP:NEO, I personally would not recommend that. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails WP:V. It's a completely unsourced microstub that has been tagged for three years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2019 (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.