Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antec
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 no consensus to delete. Daniel 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article is marked as a stub, there are still guidelines that should be followed. This company does not seem to meet WP:CORP and its only references come from the company's own website. Rjd0060 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would also like to add that since the AFD nomination, the creator of the page has changed at least two references to an outside source, however, those don't seem to be very reputable.- Rjd0060 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It may be a stub but it can be improved a bit more. (Woggy 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
(UTC)
- Keep This article clearly states that Antec is a market leader, a fact which is reflected on both the Antec page and two 3rd party reviews that are linked. Charles 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Antec is a large supplier of power products. Those who are involved in the PC industry should be able to easily recognize their name (those meaning those who build PCs for hobby, computer suppliers, etc). In terms of equating to other companies, I'd put them on the same bar as Asus and the like. I know there will be people who will be highly legalistic about my arguing this, but there are plenty of reliable blogs [1] [2] and other online sources. The article was created less than 24 hours prior to AfD nomination, and the article's creator has made a number of edits since. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability guideline WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be a good company that is non notable within the guidelines of thi forum. --Stormbay 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you people truly feel that this article should be deleted, then please feel free to delete the article of every major computer hardware supplier in existence. Charles 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Rjd0060 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I refuse to accept an obviously flawed guideline in this case. Antec is as notable as about any computer hardware manufacturer. If you want to delete the Antec page, you must delete every page linked in the See also section of the Antec page, as they are all (in my opinion) far less notable than Antec is. Also, you must then delete probably half of the various motherboard companies that exist, because many of them are simply not as well known as Antec is. This is a terrible path to go down, and it really only ends with either keeping the article, or deleting useful information from Wikipedia. Charles 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this page does get deleted, then you are more than welcome to start the AfD process on any page you wish (in fact you don't have to wait, you could do it now). I personally haven't looked at the other pages, but I take your word for it that they are less notable, however we should keep the focus on the Antec article here. Everybody knows there are hundreds or thousands of pages on Wikipedia that really do not belong. As far as this one, I don't care if it stays or goes because I know that IMO, it should be deleted for the reasons I listed. There is nothing I can do if it stays, because there are always going to be disagreements. - Rjd0060 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no desire to delete perfectly good pages. That's your job. I was just trying to make a point that you can't going around deleting pages just because you haven't heard of them, when in fact they are perfectly legitimate articles. Trying to create a limit of notability is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. Charles 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I haven't deleted any pages. The admin does that IF they deem appropriate. I am not going to obsess over this. Perhaps you shouldn't either. At this point, I am just going to let the AfD play out because like I said before, I don't care if it gets deleted or not. I did my part by opening a deletion discussion for the reasons that I have said. If you'll notice, I am not the only one who believes that this article does not meet guidelines. It doesn't really matter to me if you chose not to follow these guidelines, but they are there for a reason. I (along with 2 other editors) realize this article doesn't meet at least one guideline. - Rjd0060 02:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no desire to delete perfectly good pages. That's your job. I was just trying to make a point that you can't going around deleting pages just because you haven't heard of them, when in fact they are perfectly legitimate articles. Trying to create a limit of notability is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard of. Charles 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this page does get deleted, then you are more than welcome to start the AfD process on any page you wish (in fact you don't have to wait, you could do it now). I personally haven't looked at the other pages, but I take your word for it that they are less notable, however we should keep the focus on the Antec article here. Everybody knows there are hundreds or thousands of pages on Wikipedia that really do not belong. As far as this one, I don't care if it stays or goes because I know that IMO, it should be deleted for the reasons I listed. There is nothing I can do if it stays, because there are always going to be disagreements. - Rjd0060 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I refuse to accept an obviously flawed guideline in this case. Antec is as notable as about any computer hardware manufacturer. If you want to delete the Antec page, you must delete every page linked in the See also section of the Antec page, as they are all (in my opinion) far less notable than Antec is. Also, you must then delete probably half of the various motherboard companies that exist, because many of them are simply not as well known as Antec is. This is a terrible path to go down, and it really only ends with either keeping the article, or deleting useful information from Wikipedia. Charles 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because of outright prevalence of Antec branded products when you buy any custom computer. 132.205.44.5 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Antec generates 9770 Google News Archive results including 36 in PC World alone. There is no reason this article cannot be reliably sourced with a little effort (and no reason the nom couldn't have grokked this from a brief google). Nom, please consider whether other tags such as {{primary sources}} would have been more appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While you may have a point as far as adding a sources tag (however I see nothing wrong with the AfD nom), as far as google goes, WP:GHITS.- Rjd0060 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not the number of "hits", it is a pathway to reliable sources which may be used to improve the article, and a basic bit of research that a nominator should do before opening an AFD and wasting all our time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well if this is a waste of your time, then you shouldn't have involved yourself in this AfD. If you will note, I am not the only editor who believes this article does not meet WP:CORP. So, if this is still a "waste of time" for you, then just go away. - Rjd0060 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find this whole conversation ludicrous, and as my original vote states, I think argument is basically being legal. This is not Joe's Power Supplies and Breakfast Sandwiches, where such policy would apply; rather, this is a wide-known, well-established company who just so happens doesn't fit the exact letter of the law for WP, yet their existence does fit the spirit of WP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - rather than getting into a sophisticated version of "Is not!", "Is too!", the way to establish notability for the article to be kept is to show that with reliable sources. For example, digging up coverage from the Wall Street Journal showing that the company meets WP:CORP because a leading business newspaper thinks they are notable enough for coverage. -- Whpq 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find this whole conversation ludicrous, and as my original vote states, I think argument is basically being legal. This is not Joe's Power Supplies and Breakfast Sandwiches, where such policy would apply; rather, this is a wide-known, well-established company who just so happens doesn't fit the exact letter of the law for WP, yet their existence does fit the spirit of WP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well if this is a waste of your time, then you shouldn't have involved yourself in this AfD. If you will note, I am not the only editor who believes this article does not meet WP:CORP. So, if this is still a "waste of time" for you, then just go away. - Rjd0060 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not the number of "hits", it is a pathway to reliable sources which may be used to improve the article, and a basic bit of research that a nominator should do before opening an AFD and wasting all our time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:CORP with coverage from independent reliable sources. For example, PC World is a reputable PC magazine with coverage such as this. -- Whpq 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Widely known and covered company. RainbowOfLight Talk 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think what Rjd0060 is suggesting is that everyone who wants to keep the article should just go away. Obviously the two people who agreed with him are far more important than the seven or so who want to keep it. Charles 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When did I say that? Show me (and everybody else) where I said that. You cant because I never said that. Apparently I need clarify myself: If you think this is a waste of time [Dhartung] then do not contribute to this AfD and go away. That is what I said. I cannot be any more clear. I am not going to argue about this. That is not what AFD's are for. Like I said before, I am just going to let this AFD play out. I dont care if the page stays or gets deleted, but I am not going to leave these false allegations or insults without reply. - Rjd0060 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Everyone who thinks this is a waste of time thinks so because it's so obvious that this page should not be deleted. Telling them to leave is just telling the people who want to keep the page to leave. Charles 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay. If you insist. I am no longer going to comment on your (and to clarify when I say "your" I mean only "your") delusional thoughts. - Rjd0060 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ... Charles 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay. If you insist. I am no longer going to comment on your (and to clarify when I say "your" I mean only "your") delusional thoughts. - Rjd0060 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Everyone who thinks this is a waste of time thinks so because it's so obvious that this page should not be deleted. Telling them to leave is just telling the people who want to keep the page to leave. Charles 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.