Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
KjtheDj (talk | contribs)
293 edits
Line 47: Line 47:
::* This may qualify as original research, in that you are inferring information from product reviews rather than citing a verifiable source. I'm not sure it adds much to the article. [[User:Irene Ringworm|Irene Ringworm]] 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::* This may qualify as original research, in that you are inferring information from product reviews rather than citing a verifiable source. I'm not sure it adds much to the article. [[User:Irene Ringworm|Irene Ringworm]] 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
****You're right, but people may want to use it, if the article survives the deletion process. [[User:KjtheDj|KjtheDj]] 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
****You're right, but people may want to use it, if the article survives the deletion process. [[User:KjtheDj|KjtheDj]] 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
***** Killed the section after appropriate comment by [[User:Mikeblas|Mikeblas]]. Probably better to add links to a few notable product reviews (Cnet?) rather than User comments at amazon (which also constitutes a commerical link) [[User:Irene Ringworm|Irene Ringworm]] 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:03, 30 March 2007

Logitech MX revolution

Logitech MX revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

{{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]

  • Suggestion Maybe we should merge this discussion page with the one for the VX revolution. Then it would be eaiser to comment on them. Plus, if one gets deleted and the other is kept, it wouldn't make sense, so it's either keep both or delete both. KjtheDj 19:55, 29 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]
          • Its just another processor. It'll be replaced by something better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KjtheDj (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
            • Arrrrrrgh! Have you ever even touched this mouse? It sounds like you don't know anything about it, except that it is a mouse. As far as I can tell, there aren't even over ten mice that would even be notable enough for anyone to think of puting them in Wikipedia, so this doesn't "open the door" to all kinds of junk. Its just making an article of a product that I own that I like. KjtheDj 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) KjtheDj 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply to above If it is true of very few mouses, this is one of them. The only other mouse I can find in recent history to receive this depth of coverage is Apple's first multi-button USB mouse, the Apple Mighty Mouse, notable as representing a shift in thinking for the historically single-button Mac community. Irene Ringworm 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Another reply Maybe if this was some low rate 15 dollar mouse you would have an argument. However, this mouse has plenty of good sources, as already stated, has many cool features, and other stuff. I mean, there are plenty of other articles on mice, such as the Logitech G5 and the Apple Mighty Mouse. Why not delete those to if you want to delete this article? KjtheDj 19:33, 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]
  • 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]
                • Nope; I've only pointed out that many of the hits you're relying on are not all viable. In fact, very few of them are. Of course I've already made up my mind; I wouldn't have opened the AfD if I hadn't. I can be easily moved by a persuasive argument, though. Or, by an explanation of why our notability policy means that Wikipedia should be a historical catalog of all products ever produced, in all categories, which happen to have been reviewed by a website or magazine or two. -- Mikeblas 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • CommentPersonally, when I came to Wikipedia, I thought, "Cool, this has the potential to be an encyclopedia about every thing. People could be able to find everything from pencils to continents." But I guess I was wrong after I had found WP:N. Plus, like I have already said, if this was an article about a 15 dollar mouse, things would be different, but it is not about some 15 dollar mouse. Plus, I started this article because it stood out, to me, as a mouse that wasn't just "some other mouse." I guess that kind of sounds like I'm trying to get you to buy it, but that, honestly, is the truth. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So a few of the sources are viable... but that's still not enough for you. That's my point... you have decided the kinds of articles that get written about computer mice are never going to be enough here. WP:N was actually written so Wikipedia could include a vast number of articles on topics like this... so long as they could be appropriately referenced. The point of WP:N was never to dramatically restrict what we could write articles on to topics with dozens of journal-quality articles as sources. So if that means we can have hundreds of articles on computer mice, that's what it means... maybe you want something more restrictive than WP:N. Such things have been proposed, but never went anywhere really. --W.marsh 03:14, 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 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. At first I thought it should be merged, but after looking at the changes I think that if we successfully edit Logitech VX revolution we can have ourselves two okay articles. KjtheDj 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may qualify as original research, in that you are inferring information from product reviews rather than citing a verifiable source. I'm not sure it adds much to the article. Irene Ringworm 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Logitech_MX_revolution&oldid=119061132"