Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaesu VX-2R

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 merge to Yaesu VX. Merged as recommended by discussion and by common practice in these cases. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu VX-2R

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable product. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established through several references, including reviews in publications such as QST, CQ Amateur Radio and online sources. Some of the articles are newer and need additional references, but these should be forthcoming. While notability to the general public may be low, these are products produced for sale internationally, and are clearly notable within the subject area of amateur radio. Perhaps {{refimprove}} would be more appropriate. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article currently stands, with only one independent reference, it fails WP:GNG. We also need to draw a line in the sand with respect to including product article in WP. WP:PRODUCT is of some use but I feel that the inclusion of product articles needs tighter control in a similar fashion to biographical article. I we don't WP will be flooded with product advertising dressed up as articles, and everyone out there will create an article on their favourite product. It would be a nightmare to maintain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a directory. Agree completely with Alan, we've got to draw a line and without significant coverage in multiple 3rd party sources, these articles fall below that line. RadioFan (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional references -- I have gone through the articles and added additional references. While researching, I found a book-length treatment of these radios in the Japanese book VXシリーズ遊び方ガイド ("VX Series Guide") [1]. Book-length treatment of a subject is the gold standard in notability. In addition, I added references to several ham radio publications such as QST (US), CQ Amateur Radio (US), CQ ham radio (Japan), and Amateurfunk (Germany). All of the articles now have multiple references to independent, verifiable, third party reliable sources. I would also like to point out that the VX-7R and VX-8R have corresponding German wiki articles. I think this clearly establishes notability. Please reconsider your above recommendations to delete. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider it to be "significant" coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Four major monthly magazines and a book is not significant? What would be significant? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you haven't seen all the references from all the articles, but we're talking about a book plus 21 articles in four publications across three languages. I fail to see how that is insignificant. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is insignificant if you compare it to, say an iPad or an IBM PC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - We would end up with a very boring and incomplete encyclopedia if only subjects as popular as the iPad and IBM PC were allowed to have articles written about them. Thankfully, policy doesn't support that idea. If we look at WP:GNG #1, quoting, with my emphasis: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So, lets review. "Significant coverage" is about the detail of coverage. The threshold is that detail must be sufficient to prevent original research. This statement does not compare coverage to that of other subjects. Popularity or cultural significance is not cited as relevant to the concept of "significant coverage". If you care to review some of the references that are online, [2] [3] [4] [5], you will find that the detail level is significant and technical. The radios in question are the main topic of the articles (and book), which means that the coverage is not "trivial" according to the above policy (and footnote 1 on WP:GNG). Please recognize that the cited references meet all policy requirements for notabiliy and withdraw your deletion request. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Yaesu VX per references above. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the reasonable way of handling these, and all similar cases of individual products--except the unusually very notable ones. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Yaesu VX per Stuartyeates. I'd leave redirects from the individual product pages to the main article though. And as a comment, I see the arguments of Alan Liefting as very scary... I hope that his views don't reflect a trend in consensus shift. Not trying to make this a personal attack, but his position seems to be that niche products can not be notable, regardless of how much coverage they get. Sure amateur radio is a niche hobby, and ham radio topics in general don't get a whole lot of coverage in "mainstream" publications, but QST is the journal of the ARRL, and CQ is a (relative to the audience) high circulation publication with editorial oversight. ChrisRuvolo's work to get sources is great work, and clearly establishes notability, at least according to the current GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Per the above. Zlqchn (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All to Yaesu VX per Stuartyeates , as suggested.

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.