Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunder Audio

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. If anyone wants the article userfied, let me now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder Audio (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)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The links in the "External Links" section of the article alone are enough for it to pass WP:GNG. Especially given that there are two from the renowned Tape Op magazine. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH is much stricter than WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, but even if so it doesn't matter. Passing the GNG is presumptively sufficient for an article to be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has an extra section for making sure the coverage is substantial, and that's even before the new guidelines become the rule. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. This isn't true. In any case, no matter how many sections it has, meeting GNG is sufficient for an article to be kept unless there's some extraordinary consensus not to keep it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The additional guidelines for companies are there for a reason. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're there for the same reason all those specific notability guidelines are there. To allow articles to be kept which don't meet the GNG. It says quite explicitly that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. It doesn't say anything about if there's a single-subject notability guideline then meeting the GNG isn't sufficient for it to be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why then, is CORPDEPTH harder to pass than GNG ? Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. You're just imagining that part. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, going back and forth isn't going to help, I am going to get clarification from someone more experienced. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Renata3 to get clarification. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I understand it CORPDEPTH is now the accepted interpretation of the GNG guideline for this sort of article. The provisions of GNG for "reliable" , "substantial", and "independent" are very general statements, and need interpretation. In practice, the effective guideline is what we actually do here. This evolves--When I joined 11 years ago we much more erratic but generally less demanding. One of the responses to promotional articles in this area has been, very reasonably, to insist on high standards. (the interpretation of the relationship between the general and special notability standards differs for each standard, and the general relationship remains disputed.) DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly promotional, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (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.