682:- This is a weak nomination. There may be a lack of references currently listed but it's a pretty well-known concept, and it should be obvious that good sources can be found, which makes this nomination a waste of everyone's time. However, the article, perhaps in the way it's titled, implies a unique technology, and that fact would have to be backed up by third party sources, I think. The name seems promotional; It even sounds like a separate company. The article should be moved to a title that better reflects it merely being about a line of products.
581:
RS reviews of many of them to meet the GNG--which in this case is the only applicable guideline. I find it very difficult to assumie good faith in this set of discussions, especially as I am aware that there is a strong negative opinion --with RSs, yet, about some of the company's products. Please, would someone who knows the sources better than I start adding reviews. positive and negative
426:- I am sorry for the harassment, but, well, the editor "not taking it" was quite right in doing so. That said, I am not saying that you are not in good faith, quite the contrary, I am saying that maybe you are not familiar with our processes and stuff. I may be wrong; in this case I apologize. Anyway yes, there's RFC, there is the
200:
Notability concerns over a lack of references. This article, and related articles have recently passed through an unclear multi-article deletion or merge process where no consensus could be reached owing to the complexity of the issue. This is an attempt to AfD one article alone, so we can hopefully
580:
Very well known group of products from major company. Dozens of reviews available for third party sources. Merging all of this to the company is absurd--like merging all of Fiord automobiles. Whether there should be articles on the individual models is another possibility, for there are sufficient
486:
There's a merge discussion going on that should be allowed to proceed. This is not the right venue. Notability or not, once an AfD has closed as keep, or as in this case no consensus, the debate should continue on the talk page. I can somewhat understand why Andy is acting in good faith here given
404:
a better place, but I honestly didn't think of that - if anyone wants to take it there, then that might well be the best and we could certainly wrap up the AfD then (I'm going to be too busy, but feel free). In my tiny little mind (and I've already been accused of being too inexperienced to even
528:
With an ongoing Merge discussion already in place, and an AfD barely a week ago, this AfD is procedurally wrong, and is in bad faith because of it. This poorly-thought out AfD will do nothing to change the ongoing discussion, and discussion outweighs formal AfD. Point of order: nominator then
353:
RFC might be a good idea, should anyone care to go that route. I just want to see some definitive statement on at least one of these articles, so that we can stop going in circles. It does also need referencing, because although it might be obviously "notable", it's not
506:
Based on two things. One, the fact that this was just AfD'd. Even if it closed as no consensus, there's not really any need to renom. Second, this seems to be blatantly notable. A search of google and/or google news turns up a number of refs.
400:. I'm the one who's been accused of working for Bose, had my CV posted across the debate and all the rest of it, because one editor wouldn't take "This is clearly a notable product, leave it be" as a response to their first AfD. Now maybe RFC
358:
until the fat lady sings, or whatever our policy requires. Until it meets policy, clearly and unarguably, it's exposed to further attempts to merge it away - surviving AfD only a couple of days ago certainly didn't resolve the issue.
169:
69:
665:
Oh my GOD. Come on that page survived the nomination and didn't get deleted; this should by realativity be kept; even though someone showed me this page that says that is not a good argument.
76:
130:
291:
to me just today, it's not notable until it has references added. So this article needs to either shape up or ship out, because the faffing about otherwise is getting ridiculous.
163:
103:
98:
107:
714:
674:
657:
634:
613:
592:
570:
548:
518:
496:
472:
444:
418:
391:
368:
342:
324:
300:
276:
250:
231:
210:
90:
53:
17:
430:
if you have problems with sources, etc. - But not AfD. AfD is if you feel the article has to be deleted for some serious reason. --
184:
151:
542:
463:
No comments on the RFC suggestion but badly conceived merges are easy to undo - deletions not so easy. This isn't the place.
652:
670:
630:
492:
468:
729:
36:
409:
beyond any further shadow is a simple one-article AfD where we all can decide if it's notable or not, then drop it.
424:
because one editor wouldn't take "This is clearly a notable product, leave it be" as a response to their first AfD.
241:"Wave" is a flagship technology for Bose and deserving of an encyclopedic NPOV article explaining just what it is.
145:
705:
this one as clearly notable - as opposed to merger of the rest of the equipment into the parent company article.
288:
220:
728:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
141:
666:
626:
488:
464:
414:
364:
296:
246:
227:
206:
94:
642:- article easily meets the standards for inclusion with sources that easily conform to our guidelines. --
191:
287:
notable and has AfDed it once in a batch, then put forward a merger proposal, on that basis. As they so
553:
I'm willing to AGF with regards to the nom due to the fact that AfD has traditionally been more of an
622:
601:
693:
177:
566:
530:
487:
the actions of the opposition but this AfD just isn't the time or place to continue this debate.
442:
389:
338:
322:
272:
374:
157:
710:
648:
410:
360:
292:
242:
223:
202:
86:
59:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
427:
609:
397:
330:
310:
I don't get it. Is this an AfD or what? What is Andy asking -to delete or not to delete? --
683:
377:
and withdraw the AfD. We understand but that's not the right way to solve the issue. --
329:
Its a continuation of the merge discussion linked above. What is probably needed is an
406:
355:
588:
562:
537:
431:
378:
334:
311:
268:
267:
and I have a hard time believing that additional references are difficult to find. --
706:
643:
508:
124:
605:
583:
557:, although I'm well aware that presently it has focused more on just
600:. This prose surely needs clean up, but this is a very well known
263:
AfD seems to be the wrong venue for this. This product is clearly
722:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
604:
with a long history and a good deal of third party coverage. -
529:
opposed their own nom. This is not how the process works. (
283:
Another editor appears reluctant to accept that the article
221:
Talk:Bose stereo speakers#Merge_Discussion_-_Bose_Products
70:
Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination)
120:
116:
112:
176:
190:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
732:). No further edits should be made to this page.
405:comment on this AfD) the best forum for proving
8:
77:Articles for deletion/Bose stereo speakers
289:helpfully explained WP notability policy
74:
67:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
66:
621:Come on it's the highly ambiguous
24:
52:, his otters and a clue-bat ā¢
1:
715:18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
675:17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
658:17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
635:17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
614:17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
593:17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
571:16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
549:16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
519:16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
497:16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
473:16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
445:16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
419:16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
392:16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
369:16:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
343:16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
325:16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
301:16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
277:15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
251:15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
232:15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
219:Related merge discussion at
211:15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
54:19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
749:
555:"articles for discussion"
725:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
698:17:54, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
65:AfDs for this article:
625:that needs deleting.
623:Bose stereo speakers
201:agree on something.
48:Non-admin closure.
667:Daniel Christensen
627:Daniel Christensen
333:and not an AfD. --
44:The result was
656:
373:Andy please read
87:Bose wave systems
60:Bose wave systems
740:
727:
699:
696:
690:
646:
602:consumer product
545:
541:
533:
516:
513:
440:
434:
387:
381:
320:
314:
195:
194:
180:
128:
110:
51:
50:Ten Pound Hammer
34:
748:
747:
743:
742:
741:
739:
738:
737:
736:
730:deletion review
723:
694:
692:
684:
606:Smerdis of Tlƶn
543:
535:
531:
514:
509:
438:
437:
432:
385:
384:
379:
318:
317:
312:
137:
101:
85:
82:
63:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
746:
744:
735:
734:
718:
717:
700:
677:
660:
637:
616:
595:
575:
574:
573:
522:
521:
500:
499:
489:Vyvyan Basterd
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
465:Vyvyan Basterd
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
435:
382:
348:
347:
346:
345:
315:
304:
303:
280:
279:
253:
235:
234:
198:
197:
134:
81:
80:
79:
73:
72:
64:
62:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
745:
733:
731:
726:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
704:
701:
697:
691:
688:
681:
678:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
659:
654:
650:
645:
641:
638:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
594:
590:
586:
585:
579:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
546:
540:
539:
534:
527:
524:
523:
520:
517:
512:
505:
502:
501:
498:
494:
490:
485:
482:
481:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
446:
443:
441:
429:
425:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
390:
388:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
357:
352:
351:
350:
349:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
323:
321:
309:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
233:
229:
225:
222:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
68:
61:
58:
56:
55:
47:
46:Snowball keep
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
724:
721:
702:
686:
680:Keep, but...
679:
662:
639:
618:
597:
582:
577:
558:
554:
536:
525:
510:
503:
483:
423:
411:Andy Dingley
401:
396:Please read
361:Andy Dingley
307:
293:Andy Dingley
284:
264:
259:
258:
255:
243:Andy Dingley
238:
224:Andy Dingley
216:
203:Andy Dingley
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
45:
43:
31:
28:
578:Speedy Keep
504:Speedy keep
484:Speedy keep
256:Speedy Keep
239:Strong Keep
164:free images
559:"deletion"
653:I did it!
649:blah blah
563:Tothwolf
538:BWilkins
375:WP:POINT
335:Tothwolf
269:Tothwolf
131:View log
707:Bearian
663:Comment
428:WP:RS/N
308:Comment
265:notable
260:Comment
217:Comment
170:WPĀ refs
158:scholar
104:protect
99:history
695:(talk)
644:Jeremy
544:ātrack
515:figura
398:WP:AGF
331:WP:RFC
142:Google
108:delete
589:talk
532:talkā
526:Merge
185:JSTOR
146:books
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
711:talk
703:Keep
685:Equa
671:talk
640:Keep
631:talk
619:Keep
610:talk
598:Keep
567:talk
493:talk
469:talk
433:Cycl
415:talk
407:WP:N
380:Cycl
365:talk
356:WP:N
339:talk
313:Cycl
297:talk
273:talk
247:talk
228:talk
207:talk
178:FENS
152:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
689:ion
584:DGG
439:pia
386:pia
319:pia
192:TWL
129:ā (
713:)
687:zc
673:)
651:ā¢
633:)
612:)
591:)
569:)
561:--
547:)
495:)
471:)
417:)
402:is
367:)
341:)
299:)
285:is
275:)
249:)
230:)
209:)
172:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
709:(
669:(
655:)
647:(
629:(
608:(
587:(
565:(
511:B
491:(
467:(
436:o
413:(
383:o
363:(
337:(
316:o
295:(
271:(
245:(
226:(
205:(
196:)
188:Ā·
182:Ā·
174:Ā·
167:Ā·
161:Ā·
155:Ā·
149:Ā·
144:(
136:(
133:)
127:)
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.