Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose Headphone Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 no consensus on all. Some points: (1) it seems to be in agreement that the topic is notable. (2) No one has argued that the topic is INHERENTLY advertising, just that it is written in an advertising style. Similarly, there is not a consensus that there isn't enough verifiable information to have an article on this topic. Those issues can and should be addressed by editing. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bose Headphone Family

In what way is this not an advert? I think we can leave it to Bose to do their product marketing. There may be a kernel of encyclopaedic information in here but I'm darned if I can find it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article (and the others) pass WP:CORP so the deletion nomination sould be removed.

I think that these links drawn from inside this own nomination should be enough to end the discussion. I dont care to look for links to prove it any more. others can do that if they so wish.--64.240.163.221 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Umh wow! Thanks for all that. I should have done this much earlier since I think this proves the point much better then I have been able to so far! Thank-you so much :) Oh and nice touch with the seperators it makes it really stand out! -- UKPhoenix79 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the article lists the products and their prices is certainly wrong. Wikipedia is not a shopping catalogue. Uncle G 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It does seam to be the norm if you look at articles such as iPod photo, Pioneer BDR-101A and HD DVD the prices of units are clearly stated. Where is the problem in this and please suggest how to improve the article! -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the intent of this project is to be an encyclopaedia, not a shopping catalogue. Wikipedia articles should not be catalogue entries, giving prices and warranty information for vendors. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. Then there's the problem of verifibility. Since prices vary from vendor to vendor and potentially from day to day, it is not possible to verify them. You'll note that the prices cited in HD DVD, for example, are the prices given in the initial product announcements, not the current retail prices of the products taken from some on-line catalogue, and are accompanied by cited third-party sources. You'll also note that HD DVD does not give shopping catalogue details of individual models from individual manufacturers. Uncle G 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Thanks for the reply :) Well this site also lists only the MSRP and since as far as I can tell the only places that you can get any Bose headphones is directly from Bose or from Apple they are always the same never changing so that isnt a problem. As I mentioned earlier listing the facts on an item shouldnt be a problem from my point of view so listing the waranty is just another fact. If it really means that much to everyone I guess it could do without it... but really I don't see any real reason not to include it. If you want we could always cite the release information that talks about them. One of the reason that they are mentioned is also because if you read the Criticisms the price is one of the main points of contentsion. Your point about HD DVD is correct it does not go into detail about the product lines but if you read Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 the price is all over the place. If you want to see other articles that mention price I have many other links throught this article. Also those articles, just like this article, goes deep into the Facts of the system and state what they have and I dont see why they shouldn't! -- UKPhoenix79 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • As I've already pointed out, those are not the current retail prices, and the articles are not shopping catalogue entries, unlike this one. Uncle G 12:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment So if they were the current retail prices it would be unencyclopedic? I honestly don't understand your point with that one. If you check out the Previous Bose Headphones you'll see that it also lists the MSRP and not the current price which I'm sure is quite a lot less now if you can find them -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely Delete Not encyclopedic. Akradecki 14:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How is it not? There are many articles on Wikipedia listing products and talking about them, since that is the topic of the article. This isn't an ad since it talks about the products and critizims about them. -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll change my vote to a qualified keep...I still believe it is not currently encyclopedic...there is nothing notable about each model of headphone that supports such detailed information in an encyclopedia. I will fully grant that the Bose technology is state of the art and it itself is definitely notable. I'll support the article staying provided that it is cleaned up, and rewritten to describe what really needs to be preserved for posterity. We don't have articles detailing the specifications of each toaster on the market, and likewise we don't need every version of the Bose product line detailed. Akradecki 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for seeing that the articles are worthy of editing not deleting :) -- UKPhoenix79 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Advertisement pure & simple. Bose is certainly noteworthy as an audio company, but this article is strictly about their current headphone lineup. To be encyclopedic, the article needs to focus on headphone history, design, etc, and avoid focussing on a single manufacturer. -- Slowmover 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well it only now has the current headphones since the article had became so large that we had to split it off and create another article. This made it more much more managable. This is about a particular company so that is why they don't talk about other headphones. Much the same way that Xbox 360 doesn't start to talk about the Wii but instead links to the original Xbox and Xbox Live -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, there are now a lot of words here all saying the same thing. Yes, the writing is good. Yes, a lot of work has gone into it. As with Jeff Q, my apologies to UKPhoenix79, but I am not persuaded by his passionate pleas. It's very nice fan material and should be saved and put on a fansite. I stand by my original vote, for the reasons cited in their own responses by Uncle G, JzG, Jeff Q, and ptk (where I have indicated agreement).-- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; concur with Slowmover. -Merope 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See below. Article still mirrors advertising but topic itself is just barely OK.Delete as mirroring advertising. Promotional language from beginning to end. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So does that mean that the PlayStation 3 Article should be deleted also? -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a red herring, given that PlayStation 3 does not "mirror advertising" and "contain promotional language from beginning to end", and that the comparison to this article is a stark one. The only sources cited for this article are Bose's own advertising, and thus, as Dpbsmith said, it is mirroring Bose's advertising. Uncle G 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The comment was not a Red Herring but was used to point out that any product article can be called an ad. The PS3 is a great example since it talks about the specs and the prices like the Bose Headphones do, but in addition to this it also talks about the products in particular using as much info as possable. The Bose Headphone article does cite other sources than the manufacture itself. But if you want us to list all facts from Non Bose sources thats easy enough to do! Here is a quick list of places that cite info on them [4] [5] [6] [7] But even so puting us hard substantial facts about a product is not advertising. If you see advertising please help us make this article more NPOV Dont remove all the hard work done, please help us make this article great! -- UKPhoenix79 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It was a red herring. Once again: PlayStation 3 does not "mirror advertising" and "contain promotional language from beginning to end". And no, the article only cites Bose as its sources. The citation that links to a Yahoo! web page is citing a Bose press release, for example. Uncle G 12:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • We're not discussing PlayStation 3. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Measuring articles against other articles is the recipe for a "race to the bottom." In AfD we measure individual articles against policy, not against other articles. Good grief, this article is one long NPOV violation from beginning to end. Not even the photographs are neutral; instead of documenting the product, they present professional models pretending to experience intense enjoyment. The "proprietary" technology, which is probably patented and therefore probably has had many details disclosed, is not discussed in any significant way. An unlikely story about Bose not being able to enjoy music on a jet flight is presented... with no references. If you omit the unencyclopedic material and the material that is not referenced to cited sources meeting WP:RS, you've blanked the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment There are only two types of photos there ones that are just of the products and the advertising ones that we are at least known to not be copyvio and do the same as the famous iPods shadow dances they make the page look much nicer and I think quite a bit more professional. Even if you want me to get poeple to take photos with their own ones on I doubt that they would look as nice. Your point about the propiatary tech is interusting where do you think we could find more detail? I thought that those things would be something akin to traid secrets and not disclosed with much detail. The origins of Dr Bose starting research on noise cancelling headphones is on the bose site itself. I guess that would need to be cited. As in most articles citing more sources is needed but the need to cite more sources doesnt mean that you remove the article itself but improve it. -- UKPhoenix79 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Indeed "the Bose site itself" should be cited if that's where the story came from. But that's not a terrific source, since corporations frequently concoct human-interest stories about the origin of products, and they're not necessarily the gospel truth. You know the sort of thing: the story on the Martinson Coffee can about how young Joe Martinson, displeased with the taste of even the finest coffees, worked day and night until he found the perfect blend. Occasionally the stories are quite disingenuous, as in the case of Parker Brothers saying that Monopoly was invented by Charles Darrow. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • "iPod's shadow dance?" At least as I look at it today, the iPod article uses... a picture of an iPod. As it should. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Well I'm glad to know that you can cite the manufacture of a product. For a while it was sounding like if you have any thing from a manufactures site it was blasphomy. Now I know that your supposed to have multiple sources that can include the manufacture but it is fround uppon to have sources only from the manufacture. -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Burninate Danny Lilithborne 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Odd vote I must say that was the 1st time I've ever seen that one. I must say that unfortuantly for me I don't own Bose and I don't think that this article has a limited appeal outside the world of geekdom. There are many product pages out there that are not as well made as this one and I know that I would rather have help editing this then completely abandon all the hard work put into it and remove it! I know that you've made minor edits in the past to this article. Why not try to help make it a Good Article or even a Feature one! After all if Listings of TV shows can become Featured Articles why can't this? -- UKPhoenix79 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep All — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reason for Modification: These articles explain the reasons why Dr. Bose had to create Acoustic Noise-Cancellation technology. No Bose Product would ever be released unless the company had an explicit reason to do so. In fact, there's enough history and reason for the article(s) to be kept. I should also point out that merging any separate Bose pages to the main Bose (audio) page would only equate to a Wikipedia article being 200KB in length! Therefore, I would keep the articles because there's always room for improvement plus there's enough history in the pages for the articles to be kept. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Follow-Up: Each Bose Headphone pair has the company's reasons why it's released, and the headphone technologies should at least be retained, because it is a piece of artwork that can't be ignored. Bose started out with acoustic noise cancellation and refined it since then so that the technology would have fewer sound artifacts PLUS less RF interference, thanks to EM-shielding technology. Furthermore, the Tri-Port technology is worthy of some explanation because it's also complex technology that enabled Bose to overtime overcome the bulkiness of the headphones, though other companies have came up with other routines to shrink the headphones. Bose also work closely with the US Military for professional communications, so I would have to say stay at Keep All. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There's nothing very special about the TriPorts. I doubt they're worth mentioning. They're not anyone's standard of comparison. They're decent non-audiophile mid-priced headphones, that a reasonable person might like more or less than other good $120 headphones. They don't have any secret miracle ingredient. They're not proverbial. One of my paperback-novel references mentions "sound-killing Bose headphones," the others just mention "Bose headphones." Nobody talks about anyone "plugging their TriPorts into an iPod." Bose's sound-cancelling headphones could honestly be called innovative technology. (So could their actively-equalized speakers when they were introduced). The TriPorts aren't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think this article was done in good faith mainly by a fan (Vesther), not by Bose marketing, but most or all of the article seems like copyvio of material from the Bose website. And the content is NPOV and unencyclopedic (reads like ad spam) Bwithh 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for seeing that this is not an ad :) But this is not a copyvo and we have done a lot to make the article as NPOV as possable to make sure that its af fair as it can be! Please help us fix it not destroy a lot of very hard work researching and incoperating material! -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All - This is not an AD! This Article is the work of a few editors that have worked very hard to get as much information on these products, to improve this article and make it the best article it can possably be. There are many product pages out there on Wikipedia and people critisize this one in particular because of personal opinions about Bose. Each time someone says that these articles are ads we always ask for pointers to improve abut are left with no replies. If you look at other articles out there such as the iPod article they also talk about the price since that is a fact about the product. If you look at pages dedicated to a single product like the iPod shuffle or some HP Printers you get entire pages with just factual information. This page tries to blend the two together and show the fact with any source that we can use on the net. Just because something is listed on the manufactures page does in no way make it an ad! If that was true then no factual information about iPods would be allowed inside of Wikipedia! Please don't use your personal bias to ruin work that I am personally very proud of and that in no way needs to be just deleted. We always try to get critics to try to work with us to improve the article, Why not help us make them the best product pages on Wikipedia! -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep All. The prices are unattractive and unencyclopedic. However, I feel that the articles should exsist, mainly due to the fact that they contain NPOV information about a certain, notable product. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the input :) How would you think it could be improved? Most articles talking about products naturally mention the price of the particular product. How do you suggest we improve this? -- UKPhoenix79 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an advert! Its that simple! There are many product pages all over wikipedia I have included many links below to read and to check up on but please don't waist all the hard work that users such as myself have put into this article because you don't want to help us make this article the best it can be! Removing the article is not going to help make Wikipedia better it will only reduce the Legitimate information that is found inside of it! Please Help us don't make all the hours of work mean nothing because of a personal Bias against a company! -- UKPhoenix79 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • p.s. (copy and paste of previous long comment elided) I think that anyone can see that a lot of work has been put into these pages please help improve them since they are good articles and should not be tosed asside at a whim! -- UKPhoenix79 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. I believe these were created in good faith, but Wikipedia is not a place for detailed product line information. I would say the same for iPod photo, Pioneer BDR-101A, and various Xbox supplemental articles. (HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc are technologies, not products. Broadly sourced, NPOV articles on these products are possible.) To the extent a product becomes a cultural phenomenon, reported in the mainstream press (like iPod), an article focusing on this phenomenon makes sense, but we still would need to be careful about weeding out mass dumps of brochure verbiage, which is carefully designed to be thoroughly one-sided (which you can hardly blame a company's sales organization for doing, eh?). Even apparent reviews from trade magazines must be regarded with extreme skepticism, as the authors and magazines frequently have unsavory financial connections to the companies and products they report on. (Sorry, UKPhoenix79.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree. -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So would you think that we should delete those pages also? I would think that if anyone even tried to delete the Xbox page because it listed the "Detailed specifications" and prices that you'd get a torrent of angry users yelling at you at your talk page. The reason that HD DVD was mentioned is if you check out the HD DVD page within the 1st paragraph it states the prices of the 1st HD DVD players. I don't think that anyone could EVER delete an iPod product from wikipedia and that is just one article that goes on and on about that one product. This is a list of products that have had a lot of work done on them to just state the facts, state the Criticisms and make it look nice. All while making it as NPOV as possable! I don't see any reason why it would not talk about the Bose QuietComforts since they were the 1st company to make and market noise cancelling headphones to the public! If it wasnt for them doing this it might have taken another 10 years before anyone came out with Noise Cancelling headphones. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for all the worlds information and while it should not become an advertisement it should not be limited and not offer valid information about the evolution of technology that has name recognition and has factual & verifiable information inside of it! I cannot see any reason why this article that has much more information and credibility (even tries to cite sources) then other product stubs is being singled out! Please help us edit the article or reccomend changes instead of removing it completely!-- UKPhoenix79 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Products that satisfy the WP:CORP criteria for products and services indeed should not be deleted. PlayStation 3 demonstrates that it does with its references section. This article, in stark contrast (again), doesn't cite any sources at all that aren't Bose itself, let alone demonstrate that the products have been the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the manufacturer. Uncle G 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Thanks for the link because the debate is now over :) From the link it says that if it is valid if one of two criteria are included including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations So that would have to include [8] [9] [10] [11] or Professional Pilot Magazine (2004 Headset Preference Survey, Dec p 80) where the Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by a consumer survey 4 years in a Row from 2000 to 2004! This was only from a very quick search on the web and I know that I have personally seen many newspaper comments about them and many other Magazine reviews on them... Haven't you? And C|Net does a lot of independent reviews after all. I dont have a subscription to Consumer reports but I would not be surprised if they are there also! I would say that that is quite a lot and if you want the sources sited directly to there then thats an easy fix! I think that anyone can see that a lot of work has been put into these pages please help improve them since they are good articles and should not be tosed asside at a whim! -- UKPhoenix79 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep everything, but cleanup. Are we really trying to debate whether such a highly regarded company's products are notable enough for inclusion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the boost :) I wholeheartedly agree.... Surprise surprise! -- UKPhoenix79 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. And editors who are citing sources to demonstrate that the notability criteria are satisfied are contributing constructively to the discussion, whereas giving no rationale except to question the discussion and not discussing the article at hand is not a constructive contribution to the discussion at all. The argument that "notable company implies notable products" is highly flawed, as can easily be seen with a little thought about notable companies whose catalogues include thousands of minor products that have no independently sourced material published about them at all, or indeed have anything published about them except an entry in a product catalogue. This is why we have the WP:CORP criteria, and why we apply them. Uncle G 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Why have you not gone after other users that say Bose sucks get rid of it with this much energy? I do agree that I would prefere people citing sources or doing book searches but there have been many people that say very little in a negative way... just an observation, hope you don't hate me for pointing this out so here's a smile :) ok? -- UKPhoenix79 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am now going to apply a personal test. I do not know how it is going to turn out. I am going to perform a search in Google Books to see whether there are references in novels to Bose headphones, much as there are references in Ian Fleming's books to Guerlain perfume, etc. If there are, I'll acknowledge that the topic is encyclopedic, although I believe there's no useful encyclopedic content in the present article and that it would need to be blanked and rewritten from scratch. Oh, by the way: I own a pair of Bose QuietComfort 2's, probably the second edition, and love them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak, feeble, half-hearted keep but only if someone is willing to perform a radical POVectomy. 1. "next to an elderly woman who plugged her sound-killing Bose headphones into a Sony discman," Mortal Prey by John Sandford[12]; 2. also turns up a reference to a novel called Critical Conditions by Stephen White but page is restricted and can't be read. A www.a9.com search on books also turns up this gem: 3) "Grabbing her iPod, she lay down on the bed, put on her Bose headphones, and began listening to Eminem at full volume," Jackie Collins, I dunno how to link directly to a9 search results but go to [13] and "search inside this book" for "Bose headphones." Also, "Ethan was one of Don's pals, with multiple facial piercings and a set of Bose headphones." And 4) Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson [14]. I hate having to change my vote, particularly since I doubt the article will really be cleaned up, but there you have it. Jackie Collins, gee, who can argue with Jackie Collins? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe that Vesther and myself sould love some imput to help make this article better. So if you'd just go to the talk page and let us know what needs to be done to make this a better article we'll do what we can to bring it there! :) -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we're too far apart. Anyone who could think it was appropriate to use a photograph like Bose_QC2_person.jpg‎ rather than a picture just showing the headphones has a wildly different concept of what's encyclopedic than I do.
The things I think should be in the article would be hard to research and would involve quite a lot of hard work, and it's not my field of interest. A good article would answer questions like this: When did Bose first introduced noise-cancelling aviation headphones? Noise-cancelling consumer headphones? Were either of these the first on the market? If not, whose were and what factors account for Bose's success in outstripping them? The basic idea of active noise cancellation dates back to the 1930s, so why is it difficult to do? Obviously there much more to it than "send[ing] out the noise it receives phase-shifted 180 degrees." What were Bose's key technical innovations, as documented in patents and, probably, in the trade press, and, Bose being an academic, quite possibly in scientific journal articles? What's the difference between the technology in the aviation headphones and the consumer version? What can be said about Bose's business and marketing strategies? Does Bose sell exclusively by mail and in its own retail stores? Why? To what people is Bose trying to sell these headphones? How many have been sold? How do sales of Bose noise-cancelling headphones compare with those of other headphones in the same price range?
And, of course, the pictures should be pictures of the headphone (the steak); not the sizzle, i.e. pictures of people registering hair-raising ecstasy or smug satisfaction... people who incidentally happen to have something unidentifiable on their ears. It would be nice to have a picture of one opened up and showing the electronic components inside. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually I checked out the photo your mentioning to see why it was there and it the guy was a smug man in suit and while I agee that he is in a sute he dosent look smug but actually the photo is of a man in an airplain looking in the direction of the windows and that is all. I think that it is actually in a quite apropriate location also since it is in the area that talks about the history of Bose and noise cancelling headphones and where it talks about the technology behind them. The photo does in no way look like an ad and I think is much better then taking a photo of myself on an airplain.
Some of your questions are already answered inside of the article. Including
  • When did Bose first introduced noise-cancelling aviation headphones? The Bose Series I Aviation Headset is introduced in 1989 as the first commercially available Active Noise Cancellation headset specially designed for pilots, also used by the United States Air Force.
  • Noise-cancelling consumer headphones? The Bose QuietComfort Headphones (also now known as the QC1) was the very first headphones released by the company (1989). The Bose QuietComfort Headphones retailed at $299.
  • Were either of these the first on the market? Not answered directly in the article but as stated above they were both released in the same year and from what I would gather on the same day.
  • What's the difference between the technology in the aviation headphones and the consumer version? Those are answered inside of the article where it shows the specs. But there is no section that is specifically dedicated to this question.
  • To what people is Bose trying to sell these headphones? Bose markets the QuietComfort family of headphones mainly for frequent travelers.
Some of your other questions are actually pretty good!
  • The basic idea of active noise cancellation dates back to the 1930s, so why is it difficult to do? I dont know. Thats a good question. I would have to guess it would have to do with technology.
  • Obviously there much more to it than "send[ing] out the noise it receives phase-shifted 180 degrees." What were Bose's key technical innovations, as documented in patents and, probably, in the trade press, and, Bose being an academic, quite possibly in scientific journal articles? Since bose is a privately owned company I don't know what information is out there. The suggestions on pattents might be ones best bet.
  • Does Bose sell exclusively by mail and in its own retail stores? Not answered in the article but for a long time you could only get the QuietComforts from Bose directly via the web, phone, mail order or a Bose Store. But recently it looks like you can get them also from Apple stores. The Aviations and the Triports can be purchased from Bose directly or from bose dealers.
  • What can be said about Bose's business and marketing strategies? Dont really know.
  • How many have been sold? Since bose is a privatly owned comany I highly doubt that they give out that information. But I'd like to know that one also.
  • How do sales of Bose noise-cancelling headphones compare with those of other headphones in the same price range? see previous answer.
I do like your suggestion of having one that shows the innerds of the headphones. I think there is one on the Bose Site but I dont know if its a jpeg or a Quicktime or a Shockwave image. -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per the arguments above (and also below)... Eusebeus 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep because Bose headphones are a cultural phonomena - I came to the articles attempting to research the factual basics of what the headphone family was, without either going to a hifi-geek site or Bose's own site. Certainly no objection to careful merge activity and NPOVing - but these can all be done outside AfD. Rich Farmbrough 14:18 4 August 2006 (GMT).
    • Comment We'll try our best since we've been trying to get this article as NPOV as possable. -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or at least NPOV and MERGE Seems to be near blatant advertising, but since consensus seems to be leaning near keep, it still neads to be labeled and heavially modified to uphold Wikipedia standards. Also, keep on the look out for Corperate sockpuppets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elouamn (talk • contribs) 15:10 4 August 2006 (UTC).
    • Comment Never tried to be advertising. We only tried to list as much facts as we can about the headphones. I doubt that anyone here is a Bose sockpuppet but only people that have put a lot of time into this article and believe that it has a lot of worth and should be aided not removed. So I hope you wouldn't mind helping us make it better! -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Also delete all the other Bose crap. Hayford Peirce 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you try to be NPOV about this? It doesn't look like your looking at the articles about what they are, you seam to see that its by Bose and thats all that matters :( -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all Articles about consumer products cannot be considered unencyclopaedic just because of their subject matter. This article should definitely stay. Such articles are an excellent resource for the consumer because they are purely factual rather than being biased marketing literature or an opinion-based review. It is clear a lot of work has gone into this article and the article in its present state seems very factual and an asset to Wikipedia. However, I do believe that the some of the pricing and warranty information should be removed, as despite being factual, it makes the article look a little like a product catalogue. The units of measurement should also be primarily metric, as that is the system used in most of the world. The section about good customer relations should possibly be removed or edited, as it does not reflect WP:NPOV. NFH 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the good points and I'm glad that you liked it :) I never thought that simply listing the initial/current price of a product would make it look like an ad especially since it was in the Spec sections. But live and learn I guess. It looks like this article needs more work then I previously thought. If people want to help us make it better please let us know what is the problem so that we cna work together and make it truly great! -- UKPhoenix79 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service or a mail order catalogue. Bose can afford to buy advertising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that Wikipedia is not advertising and should not be such. But that doesn't mean that it should be deleted entiraly but edited since these are well known products that other products in their category are ruteanly matched against. Your point about Bose having the ability to purchase ads is right as sucne I doubt that they would even care about this article. I on the other hand really do care and wish it to be improved and if possable some day be considered a Good Article if not a Featured one... But that is way way off into the future. So please dont use your personal opinions of a company to cloud your judgment :) -- UKPhoenix79 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • massive editing is necessary! To aggressively list prices?? The thing actually reads along the television-commercials. It is not even written vaguely for this website. I, generally, oppose deleting articles; but, massive editing is necessary. I had written something on racism & handicappism; that did not even last three days. So, Bose?? Completely reformat. Thank You. < User:Hopiakuta_¡¿_doppelgänger. Hopiakuta 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I hope you don't mind that I helped you with formatting your comments. Never tried to aggressively list the prices only mention them allong with the specs and the Criticisms section. I have always tried to get critics involved with the article. Hopefully now they will :) -- UKPhoenix79 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all, per all the reasons listed above. And please, UKPhoenix, we understand your position. Please stop pushing it every other comment. --Zambaccian 23:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I truly hope it wont upset you if I do put a comment here since it is not my intention to offend anyone with my statements. Frankly I thought that you might vote against these articles but you have shown interust before to help us make them better and many times I have tried to not only get you involved but anyone else that raised doubts about their worth. Yet Each time I leave a message asking for help to work together and improve the article it ends with no reply. I hope that in the very least this will end up being a good thing with people trying to help make them better :) And I really do hope you don't mind me commenting here -- UKPhoenix79 00:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Don't worry UKPhoenix, I'm not offended. I am absolutely interested in helping make the Bose article better - please don't misinterpret my less-than-regular involvement as disinterest, I just don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as more regular contributors. I think the lack of independent sources about Bose products is a serious problems in writing encyclopedic articles related to the company. The main Bose page is hard enough, these articles just slip completely into unencyclopedic. A revision would only work if they were stripped down to bare stubs. As for this discussion, I appreciate your comments, but you should try to keep them concise and in one place. This is meant to be a poll of opinions, and it's hard to read if the strong opinions of one or two users are make up most of the page. No hard feelings, I genuinely feel that a detailed article written entirely from promotional sources is pretty fundamentally corrupt. --Zambaccian 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Glad that your not upset with me replying to you :) Would you say then that you'd be ok with making this page more NPOV and listing facts from other sources? Since I'm sure that most can be found all over. The only reason we took the spec info from Bose directly was beacuse it made the most sense. The Bose headphones are always used to compare to other headphones out there on the market so wouldn't it be better to edit it rather than deleting it outright? -- UKPhoenix79 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Like I said, sourcing articles about Bose is hard, because there's little information out there that isn't basically parroting Bose promotions. Serious stereo publications don't have any information about Bose products. Partly it's because Bose does not release any technical information beyond the kind of faux-scientific babble that permeates this article. Partly it's because of Bose's litigiousness when it comes to reviews that go against its sales pitch. Like others have said, if you take out the problematic sections and advertisement mirroring you're left with next to nothing, so I'm weary of claims that this can be improved. --Zambaccian 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Well I have found other sources out there and they are placed all over this page. With those sources and others I'm sure that there would be more than enough to support what is said on the page without coming from Bose directly. What is it specifically that you don't like? Are the specifications a problem? Is it the wording on the particular products? Don't forget that I have done a lot to this page and I might be mistaking the forrest for the trees. Please let us know where the problem is since this page has never been based souly on bose sources, it was just the easiest to cite. -- UKPhoenix79 03:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment The sources themselves are only one problem. The inclusion of detailed specifications and descriptions for many individual models of Bose products is extremely dubious, with or without a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Without something to indicate that these individual models are all so notable as to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, it doesn't particularly matter if the source of the specifications is Bose, Best Buy, or the Vulcan Science Academy. —ptk✰fgs 03:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment With the possable exception of the triports Each headphone listed are (and were) the standard that others in their category are judged. Bose created the noise cancelling headphone market with the QuietComforts and the Aviation Headsets and I believe that something that is held in such high regard should be kept. I'm glad that you agree that other sources can be used. But I would also say that such notable products should be included and warrant their inclusion inside of Wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all Wow there is a lot going on here. I dont see any reason why well known products should not be kept. If everyone out there compares their product to the Bose version then I believe that shows that they have a worth inclusion in Wikipedia. I didn't think they really read like ads although some articles had only a little information on it the headphones seamed well written and informative.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.240.163.221 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment It's simply not the case that Bose headphones are some kind of "standard" that other manufacturers compare themselves to. What's true that they're the most well-known active noise-cancellation headphones, but that's only because no other hi-fi headphone maker makes uses this technology, opting instead for sealed or in-ear technology, which tends to provide higher isolation (see here). The point is, there's not really anything special about these models.
      • I would think otherwise, all the reviews I read mention the Bose when talking about other headphones. I did a quick search on google for bose quietcomfort review and there are 290,000 articles using those words. From what I have read all one needs is to provide independent research on a product for it to be included. Does this not provide such proof especially since the 1st page shows much critical thinking over the headphones. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] I think there's enough independent reviews on the net to justify such an article.--64.240.163.221 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Wow thanks for all the links :) I think that your right this would show that WP:CORP has been satisfied :) Since so many published reports by independent consumer watchdog organizations has been provided why is there any debate here? -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional articles

Addendum to vote above. Not main topic. Please put main vote here

  1. Previous Bose Headphones is more of the same. —ptk⁂fgs 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. As is Bose Computer Speaker Systems. Uncle G 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. And Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Family. My delete vote goes for them all. -- Slowmover 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Add Bose SoundDock Digital Music System. Holy spamcruft, Batman! Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. -- Slowmover 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. - Merope 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as mirroring advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Most of those articles are taling about old products not being sold by Bose any more. Others are stubbs that have to be built upon. How is that Advertising? -- UKPhoenix79 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think this article was done mainly in good faith by a fan (Vesther), not by Bose marketing, but most or all of the article seems like copyvio of material from the Bose website. And the content is NPOV and unencyclopedic (reads like ad spam) Bwithh 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for seeing that this is not an ad :) But this is not a copyvo and we have done a lot to make the article as NPOV as possable to make sure that its af fair as it can be! Please help us fix it not destroy a lot of very hard work researching and incoperating material! -- UKPhoenix79 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All - If they need improving improve them! Many Articles are actually informative and are NOT ADS! A couple like the Lifestyle article are essentially stubbs with only a basic amount of information listed. They need to be helped out since A LOT of work has been done on some like the Previous Bose Headphones which only recently became seperate because of the size of the original Article! And btw how is it an ad if the page is talking about products that Bose no longer sells? -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The other articles such as the Previous Bose Headphones should stay because for one thing (I hate that I don't have a link) the 1st prototype aviation headsets were used on Voyager for its no stop flight around the world in 1986. I saw an interview with them where they were talking about the prototype aviation headphones. The QuietComforts are what EVERY other noise cancelling headphones are compared too. And the SoundDock has multiple places out there that have independent reviews on it listing the specs and information about them. The computer speakers I'm not sure upon but I'm sure that places like C|Net have reviews & the lifestyle systems I havent had much time to look up but right now as it stands its basically a stubb with the prices and minor details. I'm sure that if we remove the proces even if its the MSRP from when they 1st came out they should be fine if more detail could be included from other sources. There are also many independent sources around reviewing all of these products [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] especially the SoundDock such as [27] [28] [29] [30] and many more -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Just to make it clear, I repeat my vote in the main section for this section as well. None of these additional articles are anything but product specs spoon-fed from Bose, without any decent critical analysis. The few reviews mentioned are not indepedent sources of any data in the articles, and even if the review material eventually found its way into the articles, there's still the twin problems that (A) their factual data still comes from the manufacturer, and (B) audio tests are inherently subjective and are never conducted in these reviews in a truly double-blind manner that would prevent audiophiles from coming to the conclusions they expect, positive or negative. The criticism section that turns up in a couple of these articles, as I mention below in my WP:CORP analysis, is unsourced. Bose is certainly popular, but that doesn't justify the explosion of brochure dumps with none of the content of real encyclopedia articles, and no independent sourcing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I say add the additional sources here is just another quick search I did on google for bose sounddock review and it came up with 236,000 websites. If places review it this much I would think that would pass the test [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38].--64.240.163.221 00:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How many independent reviews must be given for a product to be accepted? It looks like this is becomming an argument about if bose products are good for audiophiles not if they pass the standard test to be included in wikipedia which I think has been amply shown by now. When one askes about the specs of other products like the PS3 or the Wii right now we only have the manufactures word of what it has and that is not removed because it is relevent to the article in whole. When we read about the iPod we dont say that it shoulnt be included because there are better sounding DAP's or because they dont do this or that. We include them because they are the best selling DAP's on the market and the one that all other DAPs are compared against. Such is the same when one talks about the Bose headphones or the sounddock. Why is there even a debate any longer? Hasn't the argument been proven? -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated redirect pages

Addendum to vote above. Not main topic. Please put main vote here

  1. Bose Headphone
  2. Bose Headphones
  3. Bose headphone
  4. Bose headphones
  5. Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems
  6. Bose Tri-Port Headphones

-- Slowmover 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep all — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all Good god, this is the worst stealth marketing I have ever seen. I'm never buying Bose. --Xrblsnggt 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So this has nothing to do with the article but your personal opinion of Bose? -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All - This is not advertising! I know because I created some of these redirects whats wrong with them? -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, the inclusion of prices and links to Best Buy? That's kind of problematic. —ptk✰fgs 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If you follow the links it is only for factual information that Bose does not release but Best Buy for some reason does. It is not to sell the product only to cite sources. -- UKPhoenix79 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The articles cite no non-trivial published works that are independent of Bose, and do not demonstrate that the primary WP:CORP criterion for products and services has been satisfied by these products. Uncle G 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Strongly agree.' -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I hope you dont mind if I copy and paste this from before :) (copy and paste of previous long comment elided) -- UKPhoenix79 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep everything, but cleanup. Are we really trying to debate whether such a highly regarded company's products are notable enough for inclusion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the boost :) I wholeheartedly agree.... Surprise surprise! -- UKPhoenix79 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles and redirects. The notability of the Bose corporation is not disputed; the notability of the entirety of one company's past and present products is a gross and inappropriate exaggeration of the notability of the company. The "Bose products suite" of articles is an enormous collection of fancruft, written overwhelmingly in a style indistinguishable from advertisement, presented from a non-neutral point of view, going so far as to list prices in multiple markets and present links to one retailer where the products may be purchased. Additionally, the "Bose products suite" of articles is significantly lacking in non-trivial published references. Some in this discussion have pointed out other articles in Wikipedia which display the same fundamental problems; those should clearly be nominated and deleted as well, but this is a discussion of one particular group of related articles. It does not seem to me, however, that the editors who created and expanded these articles are being paid by the Bose corporation for the contributions. That, indeed, may be the greatest tragedy of all. It's very good advertising copy. —ptk✰fgs 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for agknowledging that I'm not getting money for this :) Believe me this is not the entire line of Bose products out there and stuff that is quite well known like the Wave Radio's and the 901's dont have their own article. In no way has the main article Bose Headphone Family or Previous Bose Headphones tried to be ads. I know your personal belief on Bose is low but please don't let your opinios cloud your judgment on what are otherwise good articles that might need some work on them! Can you not see that they have had a lot of work done bringing them from Stubs including all information possable to make them both factually correct and and interusting read. The Specifications are correct from all sources I have seen and stuff like the Background is well thought out. If you think parts are to much like ads then please point them out and help us make it a better article! p.s. Where does it list where it can be brought? The only like that I can see is the link to Best Buy to cite a source! Bose does not release information such as Sensitivity, Impedance or Magnet Type and for some reason Best Buy does so that is why that link is there! Is there another link your refering to? And I know that I have personally bent over backwards to make this article as NPOV as possable. Bring up your contentions to the talk page and help us improve the article not destroy it! -- UKPhoenix79 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I would deem an article about stereo systems in general to be encyclopedic; a series of articles about one company's stereo products can never be much else than advertising. Is a detailed list of models of headphones by a single company really so important that it needs two articles? This really cannot ever have any appeal outside a very small group. In contrast, an example of a manufacturer that probably does warrant a whole series of articles on individual products would be something like the Stradivarius violin series (and note that even there, only two prices are listed, and one is noted because it was a world record). —ptk✰fgs 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Strongly agree. Furthermore, the Bose 901 mentioned by UKPhoenix79 is a good example of a world famous product that probably should have an article. And the article on noise-cancelling headphones should be expanded to cover the history and development of the technology, including the contribution made by Bose, but not exclusively (Sennheiser, for example, should not be left out). -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I would agree. It's quite possible that an article about the Bose product range would be encyclopaedic, too, if it discussed the historical development of products and so on. But what we have here is a series of articles massively larger than, say, Ford Transit, on a series of products which, from their pricing and other parameters, are not actually designed for the mass market. We have crossed the line into indiscriminate land, I fear. I do not believe that Wikipedia is or aims to be a resource for people making purchasing decisions. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Strongly agree, again. -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It can be more than advertising if there are secondary source materials available, from sources independent of the products' manufacturer, that are non-trivial, i.e. more than simple catalogue entries but instead (for examples) histories of, analyses of, or guides to the product. This is one of the foundations that underpins WP:CORP. Uncle G 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the same way wikipedia seems to treat automobiles. Gzuckier 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per my earlier observations on the inappropriateness of both the main article and the satellites that these redirects point to. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please check the many sources given all over this review. I think that you'd agree that they do pass the test now. -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CORP review

Uncle G asked me to review this article in light of WP:CORP, which establishes some rough guidelines on product articles. For convenience, I cite the entire relevant text here:

A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. 1
      • Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 7
  2. The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.
— — — — — — — — — — — —
  • Note 1: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  • Note 7: Two examples: Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because, amongst many other reasons, people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it. All cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them satisfy this criterion.

In light of this, I re-read the current article. I found it to have three basic pieces:

  1. Brochure-like detailed product information: 8 sections, approx. 1st 75% of article
    • includes segment on "very close relationship" with American Airlines
  2. Criticisms section: 1 section, approx. 12% of article; no specific source cited
  3. Ongoing improvement: 2 paragraphs that appear to be a Bose marketing response to criticism; no specific source cited

The only thing that doesn't sound like it comes straight from Bose or sources with strong Bose ties is the unsourced criticism section, which doesn't by itself support an article.

Identifying sources for the claims is problematic, as virtually none of the statements are specifically sourced. (This is understandable for most of the material if it is taken directly from brochures, but that doesn't support the notability case.) The "References" section lists the following sources:

  • 5 direct Bose sources
  • a Best Buy product page (which is very likely data copied from a Bose source)
  • a program description from American Airlines, which has a "very close relationship" with Bose
  • a biz.yahoo page that starts with the heading "Press Release / Source: Bose Corporation"

Based on WP:CORP guidelines, not one of these sources provides reliable notability evidence.

I still think the editors were making a conscientious effort to build a solid article, but its foundation is completely undermined by the lack of any independent sources, and given their efforts and the current result, I doubt enough independent material can be found to make this a proper article. I stand by my "delete" vote above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto. -- Slowmover 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: My review was of the current article, but I did not factor in citations that UKPhoenix79 has made in the discussion above, which are attempts to show independent sources of information on this article's subject that are not yet included in the article or factored into its text (understandable, given the pace of an AfD). Here is what I currently note from above:

  • "Bose QuietComfort 2 Acoustic Noise Cancelling headphones" review, author not specified, CNet.com.au. This review is so favorable I have to wonder if this is one of those infamous "puff pieces" written by a company and distributed anonymously as a review. The only truly critical item is about its battery, where it compares the speakers to a competitor (usually a marketing no-no, suggesting independence).
  • "Bose QuietComfort 3" review, Mike Kobrin, PC Magazine. This sounds like an independent review.
  • "Bose QuietComfort 2 Consumer Headphones" product page, PC Magazine. Points to Bose QuietComfort 3" review, Bill Machrone, PC Magazine. Another likely independent review.
  • "Bose TriPort Headphones - Glacier Blue" product page, which leads to a review with the same title, by David Carnoy and John P. Falcone. The review ends with the statement "Freelancer Steve Guttenberg contributed to this review." Fairly brief for something 3 people worked on. I'm especially concerned about the "freelancer", which is a term often used for marketing reps who contribute corporate promotional material to news agencies. Of course, it could just be a junior PCM researcher or intern.
  • "Professional Pilot Magazine (2004 Headset Preference Survey, Dec p 80) where the Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by a consumer survey 4 years in a Row from 2000 to 2004". This would seem promising if we could examine the claim (surveys are notoriously subjective and open to abuse). A Google search on '"Professional Pilot Magazine" "aviation headset"' turns up not the PPM survey but a bunch of links that cite it, starting with Bose itself. That and the lack of a link to the specific PPM mention troubles me.
  • Dpbsmith's various book citations of Bose products. These support the general notability of Bose (not contested here) but not specific products. (In fact, the Mortal Prey quote, "next to an elderly woman who plugged her sound-killing Bose headphones into a Sony discman", makes me wonder if we're looking at literary product placement.)

The biggest problem with the reviews (for the sake of this article and its associated articles) is that they don't suggest the products rise above the millions of new products from thousands of companies. I don't think that every product reviewed in every trade magazine warrants an article. In my opinion, specific products should have a substantial impact on the culture before they warrant articles, and even then, the focus should be on the impact, not the detailed product specs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; in this case, it isn't a place to collect product specs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So in your judgment there is some worth to the articles if we find other sources and its not just about the headphones but how they changed the industry? It will take a bit. Thanks for doing this. I have found some places like here Where it directly talks about other headphones by initially comparing them to the Bose QC2 and even gives the user the option to compare with graphs. If you look a search of the Google Books Using the key word QuietComfort you also get books containg that phrase. I think that the reason that the C|Net review didn't list the author is bacuse it was the Australian site. Here are some more products from the official American C|Net site [39] [40]. Also there are reviews on the Aviations such as [41] or [42]. I hope that this helps. -- UKPhoenix79 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bose already has an article. This is an excessively detailed treatment of some niche-market products. Wikinfo aims to provide the best information about subjects, maybe they would welcome this, but in a general enclcyopaedia the level of detail is excessive. An article on the development of noise-cancelling headphones which includes the Bose, Sennheiser and other products might be OK, but this gives a largely uncritical restatement of Bose's own spin on things. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSRP: $

To aggressively list prices??

The thing actually reads along the television-commercials.

It is not even written vaguely for this website.

I, generally, oppose deleting articles; but, massive editing is necessary.

I had written something on racism & handicappism; that did not even last three days. So, Bose?? Completely reformat.


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hopiakuta_¡¿_doppelgänger >.

Thank You,

Hopiakuta 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

People do seem to want to literally alter other person[s]' arguements; defeating them is simpler: thereby victory for the secondary editor.

I had entitled my comment specifically w/ "MSRP: $ ", in order to stress the absurdity of listing the otherwise already borderline absurd concept of "manufacturers' suggested retail price[s]" on this website. I do, factually, know what I'd copied.

Should the tissue pages list prices f/ facial tissue, toilet paper??

If they do, I would want it edited-out.

If I've made errors here, write a comment; but, not mine. Please.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


One annoying version of a Bose {spit} commercial was just on cnn.

Seems like the same monologue, again.

Hopiakuta 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

euwwww.

Hopiakuta 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


  • I have shifted the heading of this new section to one that incorporates it into this AfD entry. Apologies for the presumption. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As that edit doesn't alter much of the text,... Thank You,... As compromise. No stolen text: no problem.

,... &, we now return to our regularly scheduled television-commercial-article[s],... I would be less likely to worry about this article if ^^ that text ^^ would admit to being from the commercials. Quotation!! And historical prices would not matter much, if quoting from cancelled advertizing-campaigns. As quotation. Old campaigns. If someone says "Cocacola; $00.05", we, generally, interpret that as either history, when "Coke" had been "coke--ain" {{in addition to the "sugar-fix"}}, or someone is doing a "price-war".

In either case, "manufacturers' suggested retail price" seems unjustified, unjust.

Hopiakuta 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hopiakuta, if I understand what you're trying to say here, you are actually advocating for the deletion of the article Manufacturers' suggested retail price. Please note that that is not the subject of this "articles for deletion" (AfD) entry. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion, you should follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Let me know if you would like assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly "not". Sorry. Every message that I put here quotes from this Bose wikiadvertizement: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MSRP: $

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I, also, pointed-out my hearing Bose on Cnn: same monologue as this advertizement. I suppose that I'm the only one here to hear these commercials. If you took the various Bose scripts from television, overlayed them on top of this article: they would match. That's part of why I employed the similes of other ads. The prices are the other reason.

I'm increasingly wondering who these authors are. Why are they insisting on putting the television-script here? Why are the prices relevant? If they are historical prices from cancelled advertizing, then the historical relevance should be emphasized.

Otherwise they should be deleted. My opinion.

So, who are they? Are they of Bose advertizing? Next-door-neighbors to an executive? Cousins to an engineer?

Wiki should not be a television-commercial-reproduction, unless as historical-retrospective. I'm running-out of ways to say that. If I'm the only one who perceives the need for major reformat in that light, well okay. But, that is neither "delete" nor "keep". Humans are so often about "all or nothing". Well, sometimes it's appropriate; but, too much causes war, prison, other anachronism,...

as well as offensive Bose articles. That's, also, why my article was deleted. Because no one was willing to admit that any of it was worth the effort, not even the intent or perspective.

I suppose that I am incapable of perceiving like anyone else. Well, I'm stuck w/ this brain: no trades.

So, it's all about the Bose advertizing as article.

Hopiakuta 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Well I'm one of the main editors and I KNOW that I'm not being paid for this and I really doubt that Bose even knows of this article. Quite frankly if they did know about it and really cared about saving it don't you think that this article would have had many people loggin on defending the page saying that it should stay the same and out vote everyone here? Well as you can see that did not happen since it is really only myself and Vesther that have spent any time editing this page. All that we have ever tried to do is make the article really informative and interusting to read. It seams that the biggest sin we did was to use Bose.com as our main source of information. But every time that we had someone say that the page looks like an ad I know that I'd ask them to tell us where and to help us make it better. I'd never hear any response. The only reason the price was mentiond (as stated earlier) was in an effort to be thorough. It was mentioned in the specs section and it was mentioned in the criticisms section. It was not plasterd all over the place and like I mentioned with all the links above it doesnt seem to be that unusual inside of wikipedia. Here is an example, I'm going to quickly list Apple Computer articles that have prices included (and some even have Multiple different prices listed) IPod IPod mini IPod photo IPod shuffle IPod nano IPod Hi-Fi (which btw even references the SoundDock) Apple Mighty Mouse Xserve RAID ISight Power Mac G5 Xserve MacBook Pro IMac Mac mini IBook MacBook. As you see this seams to be a standard inside of wikipedia and all I did was adhear to it since it made sense. And no I don't live next door to an executive or anything else you think that I am and I'm not even Dr. Bose himself! I just spent a long time doing this article and I think that it shouldn't be removed because some people don't like the company even if they do make products that deserve to be included inside of wikipedia! Please try to keep a NPOV mind set when reviewing other peoples work. I'm sorry that the articles you created were deleted but I would think that you of all people would have wanted tose who voted against you to have looked at your articles in a NPOV way. So please do the same when you look at others work :) I hope that I answered your questions and any others that people might have thought of :) p.s. I was the one who reformatted your original comment and put it in the vote section. I'm sorry if that upset you since that truly was not my intent. -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Hopiakuta: I apologize for my misunderstanding. One problem with your statements above is that you don't give any specifics about the commercials you're referring to (like where and when you saw it, so that others might catch the same commercials; specific quotes that are supposedly identical to the article text; possibly even a video clip from a commercial on YouTube, although this last is admittedly not a usual form of evidence). But even if these commercials are saying the same thing the article does, that doesn't mean the editors got the information from the commercials. More likely, both are getting information from official Bose product brochures, which surely should say the same thing. (If they're using the same descriptive prose verbatim, however, that's a potential copyright violation, and is a concern.) In any case, I'm reasonably sure our Bose article editors aren't shills for Bose; they just feel strongly that this information belongs in Wikipedia, and understandably don't want their work to be discarded. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to UKPhoenix79: Please don't confuse objection to an article with dislike of the subject. I happen to be a fan of Bose — I'm very pleased with some 20-year Bose speakers I have that have outlasted three stereo systems — but liking a product has absolutely nothing to do with whether a particular article on that product is appropriate for Wikipedia.
    It would be ideal for editors like myself, who believe in the potential for an objective, properly sourced article, to do the work to create it, but it's much more time-consuming to do this work than it is to collect brochure details and weblinks. For instance, when I fact-check a single statement from a source, I examine its supposed print and web references, note who wrote them, search for potential biases of the authors, examine the notability of the sources, and try to pursue related information to ensure that information is solidly backed up by folks without an agenda. I have neither the time nor the interest in doing so. My only interest, which I committed to by voting here, is to keep an eye on the article to see if it mutates into something useful to Wikipedia. (I see some tweaks have been made, but the major problems remain.) It is incumbent upon the editors interested in the subject to make this happen, because no one else will. This does not mean that outside editors can't judge the merits of articles on basic Wikipedia requirements, which apply no matter what the subject.
    In the specific case of audio reviews, my experience has been that professionals almost universally refuse to do independently monitored double-blind tests, which are the only way to separate true differences in audio experiences from the cachet of brand-name competitions and reviewers' personal biases. (The few I've heard of who've participated in these tend to be surprised at how thoroughly their own perceptions fool them when they know what they're listening to in advance.) For this and other reasons, I don't believe one can write an objective encyclopedia article on such products, except when discussing sourcable history and independently reported popularity, which are not the current focus of these articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm glad that your not like some who have turned a personal bias against a company to dictate their voting decision. After all I think that this vote has become mute after all the independent reviews found and everything else that justifies its inclusion in wikipedia. I have been holding off on doing any editing until the AfD has closed and we can get back to the article and make it better. Some people have actually for once given good suggestions on how to improve this and even given some suggestions. I only hope that we can keep some people interusted in the article afterwards so that we can all work together to make it better. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Have to agree. There is a dearth of truly objective information about audio products (which is why this is fan material and not encyclopedic material). -- Slowmover 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment This article is designed to be informative just like any good article should be. We simply got facts and put it in one place. It is not fan material since we also tried to have a detailed critisms section that has now been shortened (dont quite know why) and a section following each headphone only listing the known specs of the headphones. I have provided TONS of links to MANY articles out there that do exactly the same and even go farther then that. Just look at the links, its kind of getting repetative now :( -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all - there is an encyclopaedic article on Bose headphones but this is not it. I also wonder where all this text came from? Way tto long and detailed. Delete all then produce a new article with the encyclopaedic facts. BlueValour 04:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why not help to make the current article better? There is a lot of good information here and now that we have some people giving suggestions on how to improve it we can now make this article great :) Now that we know that although you can get information from the manufacture but there needs to be multiple sources we can make it better. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyright violation - I voted fairly early in this debate, then changed my vote, and then since the discussion continues, I took a further look. There's been a lot of claims by the editors of this article that they have written this themselves and it is not Bose advertising. So I was very disappointed to find that this is not the truth. I'm not going to say that they have deliberately lied to us, but I can say I'm very disappointed. I took a random section (turned out to be from the Combat Crewman section) and copied a chunck of the text into Google, and lo, it turns out to be a complete cut-and-paste from this Bose advertising website [43] So, UKPhoenix79, you've got some answering to do. You've been less than honest with us. I have seen some cleanup of the article, but the bottom line is this IS advertising, directly from the Bose site, and therefore constitutes copyright violation. Anyreason why it shouldn't be tagged as such? Akradecki 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That was a good catch and your right that should be edited, are there any other copy vios that you have found? But I'd like to ask that you Assume good faith since I have actually been very honest about everything I have said and I have not ever intentially lied to anyone here. I just seam to be the only person that edits this article that is willing to go through all this to prove the articles viability. To put things in perspective this particular headpnone your talking about is only avalable to the military and as the article says it's not available to the consumer market. So if this section was advertising its a very inafectual one at that. I have time and time again even before this AfD came up asked those that critisised the article to point out where and help us make it better only a couple actually replied, and we worked with them to do just that. I have never said that this page was perfact and it didn't need work I have instead only asked people to help us make it truly Great and I can only hope that you can help us do just that. I'm sorry that there was a copy vio and I can only hope that you'd believe me that it was never my intention to mislead anyone in any way. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, it not like Bose is likely to complain about a copyvio that helps them market their products.... :-)) -- Slowmover 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Why do you have a M1 Abrams tank or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and wish to purchase one? Doubtful. Sorry about the sacrasm but this whole thing is starting to feel silly :( -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as without independent sourcing. Looks like an ad, reads like an ad, (doesn't) inform like an ad... Must be a duck. 64.26.68.82 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Don't understand what you mean by a duck but like said before the main source of information was from the Bose site directly. Occasionaly we would have someone say that this looked like an ad only for myself to ask where and to never recieve a reply to my question. Now we have some pointers on how to improve and (if you look thorought this AfD) you'll see that there are tons of independent sources all over the place so the page will be able to cite more and more information from places other than Bose directly. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "Duck" is a reference to the old saying, which the anon editor was paralleling: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't think the pointers on how to improve the articles warrant keeping any of them. At most, we're talking about a couple of new paragraphs for the main Bose article. Also, UKPhoenix79, I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from responding to every single comment on this discussion. It's become practically unreadable. You have made your position clear. —ptk✰fgs 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy if someone requests it. Blatant brochurespeak. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As I think that this page needs more "[edit] - boxes",...

I have not read all of those responses,... I'm sorry, I have many limitations,... If I've ever written "delete this thing", well, I don't recall it. You've written about voting on my page: I never got to vote on it, myself. It's totally a "kangaroo-deletion". The page had, actually been designed for debate. Instead of de - de - debate, it got de - de - delete.

I do know that the various bose variations have been on Cnn & wherever.

Someone wants me to upload a commercial mosaic?

Well, I do suppose that I'd need to figure a wiki-photographic-upload first.

I do have many limitations.

Most newspaper - editors would recommend:

Wherever you copy substantial selections, employ "quotation-mark[s]", &/or similar devices, w/ attribution.

&, where newspapers include prices, that's, virtually always, advertizement.

As incompetent as I am, those facts I am certain of.

Please?


Hopiakuta 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've another guess,...

Is any of you named "Coulter"?

Hopiakuta 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Hummmm.

New concepts, to me.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:userfy >;

< http://google.com/search?q=%22brochurespeak%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >;

< http://google.com/search?q=%22userfy%22+%22userfication%22+%22%22+%22%22 >.

Hopiakuta 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Bose_Headphone_Family_f44a.html"