Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoMoX

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 with leave to renominate depending on the outcome of this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoMoX[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, mainly a list of products, hardly more than a free ad. Deleted on dewiki, deleted four times on nlwiki. ErikvanB (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no need to delete article on relatively well known synthesizer manufacturer. --Clusternote (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonably well-known company, but I agree that the article is in a terrible state. The pitifully bad pictures in particular make it look a whole lot less notable than it actually is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep terrible article but does pass WP:ORG with significant secondary source coverage. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "secondary sources" are specialist trade journals. There is no coverage of the company outside its own niche. Half of the references are written by the same person. Clearly not notable. Perchloric (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the significance of the coverage in the article at the moment is a bit tenuous, but if you try a Google news search there is significant coverage by less specialist, secondary sources. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finding these, but they just look like run-of-the mill consumer product reviews to me. I agree that's not trade journals, but it is consumer journals in the same niche. I still think that is not enough to establish notability. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC) PS: I put in a request at the talk page for WP:CORP for discussion and clarification of what level of product reviewing is required to establish notability. Perchloric (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my relisting of the article. The sources in this article were discussed at Notability (organizations and companies), none of this discussion has yet to take into account that discussion. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, the article has been deleted on dewiki and nlwiki because there was no indication of notability. On nlwiki the page is now creation-protected (link). --ErikvanB (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2011 (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.