Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Previous Bose headphones

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 keep. JForget 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Bose headphones

Previous Bose headphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can see no particular reason that discontinued Bose products are notable enough to warrant their own article. I cannot find any independent, verifiable sources which prove that discontinued Bose headphones were so innovative that we need to have a separate article on the headphone products that Bose no longer sells. The editor(s) of this article would likely argue that the Bose headphones article is too long to merge this article in with it. I would say that once all of the advertisments and non-notable/unencylopedic content are purged from both this article and Bose headphones, there would be plenty of space for merging. The (rather attractive) Bose headphones timeline template already appears in Bose headphones, so we would not lose that.

FYI: Many of the Bose family of Wikipedia articles have been AfD'd in the past, with varying results. This particular article was involved in a few bundled AfD's, some in the recent past, some several years ago. Below are links to a few past relevant (and semi-relevant) AfD's. Most recently, this article was bundled into an AfD on Bose stereo speakers which ended with no consensus. This AfD is an attempt to pick out the most egregious articles and AfD them separately.

SnottyWong talk 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. Discontinued notable headphones retain the notability they had when they were being manufactured. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eastman is correct, notability does not expire. Ikip (talk)
    • Comment - Quick clarification: Assuming these products were once notable, and that notability does not expire, does this mean that WP needs two separate articles on headphone products from Bose? One for current products, and one for discontinued products? Secondly, notability of every product in this article has not been established, as the majority of the products mentioned in the article are completely unreferenced. SnottyWong talk 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, your first attempt to remove these pages from wikipedia failed, so you attempted another and it was speedily ignored, so you try another nomination to remove at least one page and you fail. And now this your 4th 3rd... let me repeat... your 4th 3rd attempt in one MONTH!!!! Please Quit Gaming the system! You have previously agreed that "(I) have successfully established notability". As I told you last time and as you have pointed out in your own nomination the whole reason that there is a Bose headphones and a Previous Bose Headphones is because the article was over 32 kilobytes which it way too large and forces wikipedia to give the warning saying some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Article size
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects.
the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections. Connections to consider include dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 KB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are not recommended.
There is a reason that there are so many Apple articles on wikipedia. Just like Bose, there is just that much information about them. Also the only reason that this article has been nominated so many times is because of blanket AfD's like what you have attempted soooo many times now and they passed every time. And as many people have pointed out, time has no limit on notability. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please don't attack the nominator. Let's discuss whether or not this article should be deleted and leave it at that. I have started one AfD on Bose product articles (which I mentioned in the nomination and provided a link), and one merge discussion on the Bose stereo speakers talk page. One of your pro-Bose cohorts started the AfD on Bose wave systems (in bad faith, I might add). I have no idea why you're saying that I've started four AfD's in one month and that I'm gaming the system, nor do I understand why a lengthy copy/paste from the administrator's noticeboard has any relevance to this discussion. Attacking the nominator will not win the argument. Let's keep it civil please. I did not personally attack you, so please don't personally attack me. SnottyWong talk 12:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First I would like to say you are correct and I am sorry. I had no idea that it was another editor that initiated the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination) that was speedily ignored. I made an assumption and it was grossly wrong. But I was not attacking you. I am just getting frustrated with you. You are correct you have never been personal, and I hope you dont think that I was either... but it is hard to AGF when you nominate every article to be deleted, then attempt and fail to merge this article with another one, then report me to the admin board only to have the admin give you a warning to desist. So you now nominate to delete another article! The Same article that you have already failed in deleting before and the same article that you failed to get merged... Do you understand why I am getting annoyed? The reason that I have posted a snippet of what was discussed before is very simple. I am trying to allow other readers to catch up on this debate.... the debate that I thought was closed. I have also asked you to help with the articles to improve them by doing a bit of research and bring more resources to the articles. But your actions have shown that you have no interest in improving the articles only on removing them. I really was flattered (and slightly amused) by your compliment of the timelines I have made.... They take a very long time to create and I still have to create them for a few more articles <sigh>. But it is nice to know that you appreciate them. So can we close this AfD and I ask that if you have no interest in improving these articles that you try and help another article to be better? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A month ago I had concerns about this article, as I saw it of marginal value in relation to its size. It appeared to meet policy requirements, but there were reasonable grounds for discussion as to whether any article on "previous products" should be merged with current products or even deleted.
At the time, I favoured keeping it (but only just). I certainly opposed merging it (I understand it was created as a fork anyway) because of WP:UNDUE size issues.
Since then this article, and the related Bose articles, have been substantially improved by the addition of graphical timelines. Whilst I did originally have concerns over their readability and ability to present some coherent overall picture of the topic, these timelines are enough to swing my opinion that these are now both useful and readable. A niche interest certainly, not even my own interest (and those are pretty obscure), but that's no reason for me to see anything here as unencyclopedic. I also appreciate how much work it is to create timelines like that, so my thanks to the editor who did so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that the timelines are liked by everyone. There are more to come.... but with my real life getting in the way, I probably wont be finished until sometime in 2010. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (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.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Previous_Bose_headphones