Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech VX revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Logitech MX revolution, which already mentions this. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Logitech VX revolution
Non-notable product. Just another mouse -- another one that seems just as amazing is only a few months away. Mikeblas 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep notable means sources exist, which seems to be the case here [1], [2], [3] et cetera. Maybe you aren't interested in computer mouse developments, I know I'm not... but that doesn't matter. Thankfully we don't delete stuff just because random people at AfD aren't interested in the topic. --W.marsh 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notable does not mean that sources exist. I can verify that I exist, but not that I am notable. Corvus cornix 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a tired argument, and an incorrect one since notability is commonly held on AfD to mean that reliable sources exist. Your word on a wiki is not a reliable, published source we could cite on an article about you... whereas a CNet review is something we could cite. See WP:N and WP:A. --W.marsh 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the sources are reliable, that's a different argument. Just the fact that something exists, as you claimed, is just as "tired". Corvus cornix 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Notable means a lot more than sources exist. I'm holding that this subject (and some of the references you've provided) fall short. -- Mikeblas 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Falls short of what, your subjective idea of what we can include? Inclusion isn't about what we like and don't like, or at least, we're trying to get away from that. Inclusion is about what we can write a good, neutral article on. --W.marsh 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The references fall short on establishing the notability criteria. The cited articles are reviews; they're not substantial. They're about the use of the product, and touch on the way a consumer perceives its design. They're not about its design, its history, its innovations, or any of the things that would make usable references for an interesting article. Some of the references have dubious editorial integrity, written by amateur journalists, using dubious testing methods and having little experience in the field. The review sites are hardly independent; they almost always receive sample goods from the manufacturer or from vendors in exchange for advertising or editorial promotion. Meanwhile, please refrain from personalizing the issue; this isn't about what I like and don't like. -- Mikeblas 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is an extreme interpretation of WP:N, and not really shared by a lot of people. I personally would not have us only write about a piece of hardware when the New York Times profiles it, and frankly I'd care more about what Anandtech has to say since they specialize in this kind of stuff. You say the sources aren't enough, I say they are. Anyway that's all I feel like saying on this issue... I find your comments and edit summaries to be more frustration than I want to deal with at this point. --W.marsh 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not clear that Mikeblas has actually read the sources. The article at Anandtech most certainly does cover the design, history, and innovations of the new mouse in exhaustive detail. The consumer perception and editorializing is reserved for the last few hundred words. He is also apparently not familiar with Anandtech, an extremely well-regarded review site. Irene Ringworm 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with Anandtech -- enough to know that it's not universally well-regarded. There's no link to an Anandtech review of the VX in this AfD, or in the article in question. I can't find one; they review the MX, mentioning that the VX will be reviewed some time in the "near future", but I don't find such a review when searching their site. (As such, I baffled at how my familiarity with a site that is involved neither in this AfD nor in the article it discusses is relevant.) The MX review[4] includes what the reviewer thought of the design of the mouse, but that's editorial opinion, really. (Which is yet another reason why reviews aren't good primary sources.) What I'm thinking about are references about the design from the design team itself. Truly notable products will result in interest in the process that created them. The design team might write books, do a "making of" documentary, or be interviewed in magazines. That kind of material provides an authorotative reference about the design and development of the product. What Anandtech has written (again, for the MX, since I don't see the VX article) is about their observations of the physical product, and is quite shallow. -- Mikeblas 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like this article [5] about the flywheel design for the scroll wheel? Irene Ringworm 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with Anandtech -- enough to know that it's not universally well-regarded. There's no link to an Anandtech review of the VX in this AfD, or in the article in question. I can't find one; they review the MX, mentioning that the VX will be reviewed some time in the "near future", but I don't find such a review when searching their site. (As such, I baffled at how my familiarity with a site that is involved neither in this AfD nor in the article it discusses is relevant.) The MX review[4] includes what the reviewer thought of the design of the mouse, but that's editorial opinion, really. (Which is yet another reason why reviews aren't good primary sources.) What I'm thinking about are references about the design from the design team itself. Truly notable products will result in interest in the process that created them. The design team might write books, do a "making of" documentary, or be interviewed in magazines. That kind of material provides an authorotative reference about the design and development of the product. What Anandtech has written (again, for the MX, since I don't see the VX article) is about their observations of the physical product, and is quite shallow. -- Mikeblas 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The references fall short on establishing the notability criteria. The cited articles are reviews; they're not substantial. They're about the use of the product, and touch on the way a consumer perceives its design. They're not about its design, its history, its innovations, or any of the things that would make usable references for an interesting article. Some of the references have dubious editorial integrity, written by amateur journalists, using dubious testing methods and having little experience in the field. The review sites are hardly independent; they almost always receive sample goods from the manufacturer or from vendors in exchange for advertising or editorial promotion. Meanwhile, please refrain from personalizing the issue; this isn't about what I like and don't like. -- Mikeblas 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Falls short of what, your subjective idea of what we can include? Inclusion isn't about what we like and don't like, or at least, we're trying to get away from that. Inclusion is about what we can write a good, neutral article on. --W.marsh 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup, and merge with Logitech MX revolution, an identical product for desktops. External coverage is pretty much limited to product reviews but the depth of coverage (Anandtech writes over ten thousand words), suggests that this is more than "just another mouse". That being said, the current article reads like marketing material. Agree with Mithent that the new article should focus on the unique features. Irene Ringworm 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The depth of coverage suggests only that the Anandtech editors don't know when to stop. After all, their motivation is to generate ad revenues. The more pages, the more page impressions. -- Mikeblas 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notable does not mean that sources exist. I can verify that I exist, but not that I am notable. Corvus cornix 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Irene Ringworm; the mice are (apparently) identical, except that the VX is smaller and is for laptop use. I may be wrong, however :-/ M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your close enough to right KjtheDj 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Individual types of mice are notable; individual companies leading in the field are notable; individual models are not. DGG 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment FYI (and not to justify notability) there are pages already for other mice, such as the Apple Mighty Mouse and Apple Pro Mouse. The articles describe mice which represent significant design innovations (multi-button mouse for mac) or industry-changing placements (optical mouse as standard hardware). The question is whether this particular mouse represents a similarly significant innovation or whether it is "just another product release". Irene Ringworm 16:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The other article, Logitech MX revolution has been edited to a good point. Maybe we should work on this article too to get it better. As the creator, I may be a little bias, though. It may want to be merged with Logitech MX revolution KjtheDj 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge, whatever. WP is not marketing vehicle for every brand name Logitech created on a regular basis. Pavel Vozenilek 09:30, 31 March 2007 (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.
