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 per consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bose headphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been over five months since the original AFD. Despite the promises by a number of editors to clean up the advertising language in the article and provide sources, the article today still reads like an advertisement. With the exception of a single product review in a newspaper, all of the sources cited by the article are either published by Bose or by business partners of Bose.

The encyclopedic information here boils down to two sentences: "The Bose corporation produces a line of audio headphones. They are known for their use of active noise cancellation." These statements are already included in the article Bose Corporation.

Please be sure to expand the "show/hide" boxes in the article, which reveal long lists of consumercruft and links to product pages at the Best Buy web site.

This article has had long enough to demonstrate encyclopedic potential. Time's up, and as the cybermen say, delete. —ptk✰fgs 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I agree, the article has had long enough. Allow re-creation of a proper article on this topic without prejudice, but this isn't an encyclopedia article and isn't the start of one. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Burninate once again as WP:VSCA as per my original vote. I hope we can avoid the trainwreck that was the last AfD. JuJube 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article does have some useful information "The Bose QuietComfort 3 are twice as effective as the QuietComfort 2" but it's not enough to warrant an article. Darkwhistle 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Oh God Again! Why don't you just talk to me and let me know what the problems are so I can fix them instead of keep on doing this! If there is something that needs to be changed just communicate to me and I will help edit it! When the nom ended assistance in fixing this page ended also. Please help me and list what needs to be worked on since this article is worthy. Since this does pass WP:CORP there is no call for deletion but editing only. -- UKPhoenix79 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes WP:CORP so the deletion nomination is to be removed. Proof of this is listed below. here are the requirements as of WP:CORP

A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
  • Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
• There are many references (refer to the article and talk page. John Vandenberg 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Independent published works (refer to the talk page. John Vandenberg 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

• I have found no evidence of this.

-- UKPhoenix79 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of sources included in the above post have been moved to the articles talk page. John Vandenberg 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste huge chunks of text verbatim from the previous AFD into this discussion. I have already linked it above. Let's try to have an orderly discussion this time.

The problems with the article are clear and fundamental. It reads like a shopping catalog, with lists of specifications and subjective claims supported only by Bose's own marketing material. Reposting a five-month old dump of external links into this AFD is not an appropriate solution to the lack of non-trivial, independent reference sources in the article.

This community has assumed good faith for five months. It's time to take out the trash. —ptk✰fgs 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content that is intended to PROVE this pages worth. Do we really want to make another 100kb page just to say exactly what I have stated above. As I'm sure you know I completely disagree with you but I want you to help!! You say things are inatiquent then please assist us in improving this. There is no reason in doing this over and over again. If you think this pages needs improving let us know exactly what the problems are so they can be resolved and make this article better for it! -- UKPhoenix79 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reposting text that is easily accessed in the previous discussion. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It is important that you resist the urge to flood this page with comments. Ensure that you are adding something substantial to the discussion before saving your changes. (Hint: if you feel that you are repeating yourself, it is probably not something substantial.)

As I noted before, a stale dump of external links in an AFD does not fix the problems in the article. I enumerated clearly the fundamental deficiencies in the article. It lacks independent non-trivial sources. It reads like a shopping catalog, eschewing discussion of the history and impact of the product in favor of an unencyclopedic litany of product features and specifications. It brazenly includes external links to product pages at the Best Buy web site.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The lists of unremarkable information (for example, "magnetically shielded ear cup", "3.5mm stereo plug", MSRP's in three different currencies, minute variations in the rotational angles of product parts) are exactly what is meant by "indiscriminate collection of information" and should be removed. The unfalsifiable and subjective assertions (for example, "better treble performance", "much more effective at attenuating noise") scattered throughout the article serve no purpose except to promote the products of a company. Wikipedia is not a platform for free marketing.

I've already indicated that, as far as I can tell, there are two kernels of encyclopedic information in this page. Bose sells a range of headphones. They are noted for their use of active noise cancellation. The rest is cruft that could not possibly interest anyone unless he's shopping for electronics.

Lastly, there was no consensus to keep the article. The previous AFD, as you'll note, was closed with a decision of no consensus, with a recommendation that the page needed substantial cleanup. The only viable cleanup strategy I can conceive of for this page is #REDIRECT [[Bose Corporation]], so please excuse my reluctance to be instantly reverted rather than bring it here for discussion first. —ptk✰fgs 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the price was mentioned is in an effort to be thorough. It was not plastered all over the place it doesn't seem to be that unusual inside of wikipedia. Here is an example, I'm going to quickly list Apple Computer articles that have prices included (and some even have Multiple different prices listed) IPod IPod mini IPod photo IPod shuffle IPod nano IPod Hi-Fi Apple Mighty Mouse Xserve RAID ISight Power Mac G5 Xserve MacBook Pro IMac Mac mini IBook MacBook. Hell if you go to Xbox_360#Retail_configurations & PlayStation 3#Release data and pricing they have an entire table dedicated to listing the prices by individual country. And you will notice that the specs of these products are clearly listed also. These are standards for an encyclopedia to list facts and these are facts. Now saying "better treble performance" is listed as items that Bose claims to have improved from the previous version and should be cited as such. But such things as "magnetically shielded" is something that is listed as one of its features... Just check out other product pages that I have listed Each one has technical specifications heck just check out Wii an article that I have not even mentioned yet and you will see that this is exactly the same. -- UKPhoenix79 07:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure there is other junk in the encyclopedia, and it does not surprise me that it has appeared in Apple and Nintendo articles. That is not relevant here, because it is not those articles under discussion.

My point with "magnetically shielded", "3.5mm stereo plug" and so forth is that those bits of information don't even add anything to shopping research on the product. We've already said they're consumer headphones; it follows quite obviously that they will be magnetically shielded and have the standard plug. As Zunald notes below, if we remove the advert material we're left with little more than the first few sentences. Those bits are easily merged into Bose Corporation. —ptk✰fgs 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point with showing you all of these Apple pages with prices was the fact that I showed you only one company and they all had the cost listed. If you were to search through wikipedia you will find that almost every single one out there lists the MSRP. Like it or not it is the standard. Heck I showed you this last time and you had the same answer that its their problem. Well as you see 5 months later it was conclusive that the price should stay and not only that we should list the prices for the entire wold for some systems.... I don't see any nominations that the iPod page is an Ad I don't see the XBox 360 listed similarly...

Also if you are talking about headphones it is important to list how it connects since there are two main types out there 1/8th inch (aka 3.5mm) and 1/4 inch stereo connections. It is like saying how the Wii connects to the TV using composite, s-video or component. When one talks about technology you need specifics when connecting to another technology. The magnetically shielded is specifically listed because it is a difference between a previous model and a reason why some accessories (for the cell phone) will not work with the previous model. Actually if you remove the "adverts" as you claim you are left with simple facts including citations, R&D (cited thanks to Dpbsmith), the timeline, A long list of facts for the quiet comforts that will take up a page, Simple facts about the non noise canceling headphones (i.e. triports) that will take up another page, The Aviation headphones that fact wise is very complete and again takes up a lot of space, Blurbs about the Combat Vehicle Crewman Headset, the entire American Airlines section, and the Criticisms section that I personally think needs some expansion. This would still be a separate article since there is so much plain and simple facts about the products out there. -- UKPhoenix79 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, add maintenance tags and improve. As far as I can see, this is an abuse of Afd, as an article for this topic is clearly warranted, and the current article goes a long way to filling that need. The previous outcome stated "Those issues can and should be addressed by editing." I'm not a fan of direct links to BestBuy, and I'm sure I can find other faults, but those can be fixed by editing. Stop whining that certain people haven't done this within the time-frames you expect: be bold and help. John Vandenberg 05:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resent this kind of criticism, as I have tried to help. The section headed "research" is essentially my work and is one of the few portions of the article not sourced to Bose. I have tried to trim the worst excesses in terms of promotional language. I have pushed and helped to find pictures that simply show the headphones, rather than earlier attractive young women dancing with headphones or handsome middle-aged men in expensive suits registering dignified satisfaction while wearing headphones. In the time since I've last worked on the article, fresh advertising-copy-like material has been added on more Bose headphones. There is absolutely no indication that anyone is seriously working on an encyclopedia article about Bose headphones or that the article is improving over time. Since the last AfD, it has gotten worse in every respect criticized in the previous AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How has it gotten worse? Those images are no longer there, much of the offending informations specifically stated was removed and as you said you went through the article and did a great job in helping... btw you were one of the few to stick around and help so thanks... Nothing so blatant as has advertising-copy-like material has been added the article since the last AfD. The only drastic change was inclusions of the On-ears and In-ears and they are very terse sections stating that they exist. They were added when they premiered and not much has been changed in those sections. I would have done more editing but I had a long wikibreak after the last AfD and personal life got in the way. Much like it still is :-( -- UKPhoenix79 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not whining that specific people have not fixed the article. I am asserting that in five months, even the most dedicated Bose editors have not been able to turn this into much more than a litany of consumercruft, and that this effectively demonstrates that there is no propensity for Wikipedia to produce an encyclopedic article on Bose headphones at the present time. I have already indicated my proposed cleanup of the article; it consists of the two sentences' worth of encyclopedic information I was able to find. Once one is forced to reduce an article to that length, AfD follows not only appropriately but as a matter of course. —ptk✰fgs 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per John Vandenberg. hateless 08:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This reads FAR too much like an advertisement and a catalogue for Bose headphones. If the ad-like info were removed, you'd be left with little more than the first few sentences, as well as info that more properly belongs in noise cancellation. That said, redirect with haste to Bose (company), this might be a plausible search term. Zunaid©® 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY STRONG KEEP — Like I said, the headphone technologies are worthy to talk about, literally the marketing language can be foregone (though I'm not going to make radical edits unless necessary or sourced). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason for Edit: It shouldn't be reduced to a one-sentenced stub blunder as only the existing marketing language needs to be foregone to make an article look better. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - well known brand - but needs extensive clean-up to make it acceptable to the encylopedia and suitable for a general audience. --Charlesknight 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a well known product line from Bose. A popor quality article should not be deleted. -- Whpq 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Poor quality of a notable and verifiable article is never an argument to delete. There is always the option to be exceptionally bold, reduce the article to a stub, and rebuild. That said, I am far from convinced that there is sufficient notability of the product to create a free-standing article separate from the parent company. This may be a reaction to the poor state of the article, and I can't honestly advocate any particular action. Eludium-q36 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is always the option to be exceptionally bold, reduce the article to a stub, and rebuild." I just tried that. It was immediately reverted to its previous state, just as promotional as before. If the article is not to be deleted, it should be a redirect to Bose Corporation, which could contain a section on the headphone products. There, at least, the editors of Bose Corporation could help keep an eye on it. As it is, Bose headphones is practically a point-of-view fork of Bose Corporation, the point of view being uncritical adoration. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dont be ridiculous. The reason your stub was reverted is because the article is actively being worked on by many editors, and your stub was not a good stub. Your stub was purely to prove a WP:POINT. Converting the article to a stub is still a valid recommendation, if people think that the ongoing changes are not resulting in a satisfactory article. John Vandenberg 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say that was akin to vandalism--64.240.163.221 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unequivocal Keep Are you saying that the Bose headphones are not notable? I believe that the last time they were proven to be notable products even passing WP:CORP. If you think this article needs editing then edit it. Work from the facts of the headphones and go from there. Nothing can go wrong if you use facts as the basis of a good article.--64.240.163.221 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that no one has yet been able to produce an article on Bose headphones that is capable of standing on its own. A section in the article Bose Corporation is surely warranted. As I've said before, there's so little in the article that is of value that it can be edited down to nothing, as the Bose Corporation article already contains the encyclopedic information. —ptk✰fgs 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now thats just silly especially since dpbsmith said that (s)he added verifiable information to this article. Lets do what the annon user said and work from known facts and expand the article from there. There are plenty of facts in the article and they should be worked with to make it better.

Ok... Lets try this Please go to other Product Articles and give examples how they are better and lets try to use them as templates to make this article better! The only way to move forward is to use what we have and make it into something better :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Some of the marketing language and the upgrade pricing information can be foregone to make it a bit more encyclopedic. When I mean lose the marketing language, I mean trying to find awkward phrases that contribute to being as marketing language and forego it to make it a bit more encyclopedic. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that some editors of this article will not accept what might be called the "zero-based approach" of cutting it down to a stub and selectively adding back encyclopedic, verifiable, neutral information that is not entirely sourced to Bose Corporation sources. Those who have argued for reducing this to a stub rather than deleting it should keep this in mind. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete or redirect to Bose. The mere fact that the discussion has gotten this heated just proves that agents of Bose are hard at work to keep their promotional material vested in the Wikipedia. The more heated the argument gets, the more I want it gone. Besides that, delete per Nom MiracleMat 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so the fact that there are edittors that are strongly making a case to keep an article is grounds to delete it? AFD is a discussion ,and a case for keeping or deleting should be made based on merit guided by policy and guidelines. -- Whpq 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agents of Bose?? What on earth does that mean? That only people that are being paid by Bose want to keep this page? Damn I think I have missed out... How do I contact them to get paid??--64.240.163.221 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep the article makes explicit claims of notability, provides several sources to back up these claims, and represents a unique set of products that serve a specific market niche, all in full compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP. While IPod could be redirected to Apple Inc. or portable media player, and PlayStation 3 could have been a redirect to Sony Computer Entertainment or video game console, each article -- and I could supply dozens of others -- stands on its own based on the distinct nature and characteristics of the product in its market. As indicated in the nomination, both iPod and PlayStation 3 could have been distilled down to the first paragraph (or first sentence) in their lengthy articles and inserted onm the corporate article, yet haven't. Other than the fact that they are sending me a free set of headphones in exchange for my vote, I resent the implication that I and any of the other individuals participating in this AfD (and receiving their own headphones) are shills of Bose Corporation. Alansohn 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do I get a pair? I think you should share the love and tell Bose to send us all headphones... well those who vote to keep the page.--64.240.163.221 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I don't even use them, but I know that the individual products are notable. An objective description can be given, and it should have been done, and I am about to do a little of it. Deletion of the article is not the remedy for excessive commercial content. Reporting price in such articles is a dilemma. It is normally material for a catalog page or a website, not WP, but in some cases the pricing is itself notable. In this case, that the headphones are such a success despite being priced above competitive projects is relevant. DGG 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentI have now made a first pass at copyediting , mainly at the first portions. I have, undoubtedly more controversially, boldly removed the hidden product specifications. This is much better done with external links & I assume the existing external links lead to them.

It rather startles me that outside sources could not be found for documenting the various features, considering the very large number of product reviews that have appeared. DGG 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you agree on the articles worth and ecstatic that you decided to help improve the page. Though I do think the specifications are a necessity and if you check any well documented article dedicated to a product you will see that they list them also, with notable examples including iPod, Xbox_360 & PlayStation 3. So I do think that we should list specifications. The reason that they were using hidden text was to save space and to focus on the article itself allowing the reader the choice of reading the info or not. As one user said, these are just facts and a any good article should use the facts as the basis of everything else that appears. Do you know of any solution to including this? I wont revert back for a while to see if a solution presents itself :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better without the specifications. The Bose Corporation has a perfectly good website where anyone interested can find this sort of details. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes the article look like advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does not list all the specifications... Go to the Bose website and try to find the decibel rating, driver size, operating temperature, impedance or the Magnet type. Bose does not list such information and it was through a lot of digging that such information was found. But like stated before is it not a common practice on wikipedia to list such tings? What I think we need is a good example to work off to make this article better! -- UKPhoenix79 03:33, 13 January 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.