Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech MX revolution: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:43, 29 March 2007

Logitech MX revolution

{{prod}} was removed without comment by User:149.28.228.106. After several edits by that user, the article remains without any claim to notability for this computer mouse product. Mikeblas 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as it is 100%, unadulterated spam Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - this is a relatively significant product release by a major electronics company; how is it not notable? Yes, it needs to sound less like an ad. In a few seconds I found reviews at CNET ([1]) and Anandtech ([2]), both of which I would consider reliable secondary sources. I'm sure it was also reviewed in dead-tree-format computer magazines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer. It's not notable per the above. It's just another mouse. It'll be discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else. -- Mikeblas 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Virtually any computer product will be "discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else." Should we not have an article on, say, the Pentium III? That fits the above description too. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think you already know the answer to your own question, but I'll indulge you anyway. The Pentium III is notable because it's a far more complicated product with far more innovations. The development history is documented in books, its architecture is studied in textbooks, and there are a variety of interesting aspects of its history, performance, implementation, and application. (That's not true of all processors, by the way.) And it's true of very, very few mouses. On the contrary, should we have an article about every single product ever reviewed at a couple of websites or in a printed magazine or two? I hope not; that is, I hope the people using reviews and "references == notability" arguments understand that opens the door to hundreds of thousands of articles on all sorts of run-of-the-mill products, from stereo gear to knitting needles. That's pretty obviously not what Wikipedia needs, and I guess I mistakenly believed that everyone could see that. -- Mikeblas 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup as above - this mouse was quite widely reviewed as the range does have a unique feature in its unusual scroll wheel. An article should probably focus on that. -- Mithent 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup, it's a product by a major consumer electronics company, and as Crotalus has proved above reliable secondary sources exist confirming its notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Just another mouse. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Funny how you say "just another mouse" when you name is Syss Mouse —The preceding KjtheDj 00:02, 29 March 2007

Delete per WP:N and maybe WP:SPAM. I think many of us can sympathize that can be tough to see your article erased for failing Notability, but the author should have been aware of Wikipedia policy ~~and should never remove a prod~~. Scienter 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, that's not Wikipedia policy - anyone can remove a prod from an article for any reason bar blatant vandalism. Please see WP:PROD. exolon 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was incorrect and KjtheDj was proper in removing the prod. Thank you for the correction. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Krimpet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources seem thttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Logitech+MX+revolution%22o exist... so meets notability standards, even if AfD voters apparently don't like the product or at least don't care about it. It's not spam just because it's about a commercial product. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech VX revolution. --W.marsh 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It takes more than sources to meet notability standard. Please see WP:N for the additional criteria. -- Mikeblas 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How trite... I've been involved in discussing and promoting WP:N for months. I think I've seen it. --W.marsh 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Then I'm surprised that you forgot to indicate you considered the quality and depth of the references, per WP:N, in your decision. -- Mikeblas 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are 125 results for this product on Google News [3] including publications like the Seattle Times. Perhaps there's not enough to write a featured article on this mouse, but the level of useful information we could get from the existing sources satisfies WP:N. The level of scrutiny you'd like us to apply is really out of step with what is done at AfD... most topics are kept once a few reliable sources can be found, let alone dozens. You may not think it's enough, but most people would. --W.marsh 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry that I don't fit in with the status quo. But that's the only way to move things forward, isn't it? WP:N offers nothing to suggest that it isn't meant to be interpreted in precisely the way it was written. Many of the hits you've found in Google are posts in forums and on blogs, which aren't meaningful references -- unless it turns out that WP:R is also not meant to be interpreted the way it is written when it talks about dubious references. I indicate above why I think it's necessary to take a hard line when determining the -- Mikeblas 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're throwing out 125 results on the basis that some are blogs... I think you've already made up your mind here. --W.marsh 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, and merge with Logitech VX revolution, an identical product for laptops. 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 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed; since the references for this subject are mostly reviews, how can they be used as references in writing anything other than a review? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Most new product introductions do not receive the depth of coverage that this one has received. Anandtech, Cnet, and their print cousins typically give little more than a passing mention to new peripherals in a buyer's guide. Anandtech gives this particular peripheral a nearly ten thousand word article describing major competitors, the history of logitech mice, and closing with "We found the overall design, ergonomics, and quality of materials to be the best of any mouse we have used to date. While the Revolution has several new features from both a hardware and software viewpoint, we found the new scroll wheel to be the most important technology introduced on this mouse." Certainly not every mouse on the market needs a wikipedia article but the MX and its VX sibling represent a significant offering from a major company that has achieved a level of attention and depth of coverage far beyond the norm. Irene Ringworm 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleanup, and merge with Logitech VX revolution I am sorry I deleted that prod. I wasn't logged in and I was using a different computer than usual. I am not used to Wikipedia policies, as I am new. However, now I know. I do say that it needs cleanup, as the author. I also accidentally cleared the talk page for the article. See it for what happened. Whoever was posting, please put it back so I can see what it says. I did put a comment, on the talk page. Thats were you are supossed to put it, right? I have deleted that comment because now I feel it was rude. KjtheDj 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please see my comment on Scienter's contribution above - you are allowed to remove a prod for any reason, so you didn't break any policy. See WP:PROD for guidance. exolon 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see above. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Commment WP:PROD explains that you should leave an explanation of why the article shouldn't be deleted when removing the PROD. I noted what happened in the nomination for context, not because of any problem. -- Mikeblas 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 *'''Keep, cleanup, and merge with [[Logitech VX revolution]]''', an identical product for laptops.  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 [[User:Mithent|Mithent]] that the new article should focus on the unique features.  [[User:Irene Ringworm|Irene Ringworm]] 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 **'''Comment'''. Indeed; since the references for this subject are mostly reviews, how can they be used as references in writing anything other than a review? -- [[User:Mikeblas|Mikeblas]] 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
+***'''Reply'''.  Most new product introductions do not receive the ''depth of coverage'' that this one has received.  Anandtech, Cnet, and their print cousins typically give little more than a passing mention to new peripherals in a buyer's guide.  Anandtech gives this particular peripheral a nearly ten thousand word article describing major competitors, the history of logitech mice, and closing with "We found the overall design, ergonomics, and quality of materials to be the best of any mouse we have used to date. While the Revolution has several new features from both a hardware and software viewpoint, we found the new scroll wheel to be the most important technology introduced on this mouse."  Certainly not every mouse on the market needs a wikipedia article but the MX and its VX sibling represent a significant offering from a major company that has achieved a level of attention and depth of coverage far beyond the norm.  [[User:Irene Ringworm|Irene Ringworm]] 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep cleanup, and merge with [[Logitech VX revolution]]''' I am sorry I deleted that prod. I wasn't logged in and I was using a different computer than usual. I am not used to Wikipedia policies, as I am new. However, now I know. I do say that it needs cleanup, as the author. I also accidentally cleared the talk page for the article. See it for what happened. Whoever was posting, please put it back so I can see what it says. I did put a comment, on the talk page. Thats were you are supossed to put it, right? I have deleted that comment because now I feel it was rude. [[User:KjtheDj|KjtheDj]] 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' - Please see my comment on [[User:Scienter|Scienter]]'s contribution above - you are allowed to remove a prod for any reason, so you didn't break any policy. See [[WP:PROD]] for guidance. [[User:Djbrianuk|exolon]] 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)