Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Røde Microphones

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Røde Microphones

Procedural nomination. Article has previously been speedy deleted citing CSD G11 and A7, with no assertion to notability despite the article being in existence for over a year. Article has been recreated, and despite being in existence for just over three weeks, it remains as nothing but a one sentence article which has failed to deal with any of the issues giving rise to previous speedies including WP:V, WP:CORP, WP:RS, etc. It was tagged for speedy as CSD A1 on June 5, but due to Speedy queue delays remained unactioned until the tag was removed on June 29. Thewinchester (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No context, no sources, no verification, no nothing at all! Heck, they don't even list a web site for this company. Realkyhick 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP, WP:V.  RGTraynor  15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. In its current incarnation this is speediable, since notability isn't even asserted; but I think it's best to let the AfD run its course. Deor 15:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep short but expandable article on a very notable company. Røde, especially the Røde Classic and NT5 models, are widely used in professional music. Note: some of the previous versions in history are superior to the current version. Definitely passes WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment With due respect to the above user, it's been given three individual chances to be improved and nothing has happened. Each time the article has been created, it has been left languishing and was nothing more than spam and corpcruft. Thewinchester (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When I submitted the stub a year and a half ago, I most definitely did not do it for the purpose of spamming or advertising. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's quite basic, and could use some cleanup, but is certainly notable. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've expanded and cleaned up the article; plenty of hits on Factiva, definitely notable in the professional music industry Recurring dreams 08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is certainly a notable company and rather well known within the audio engineering industry. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. However passes WP:N with a reliable secondary source of Sound on Sound magazine. A short article is not grounds for deletion. Assize 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand as per Assize. --NAHID 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't see any significant problems with the article in its current state. Lankiveil 11:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep, looks notable and well-referenced now, good work Recurring dreams. --Canley 14:41, 3 July 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.