Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Logitech MX revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Logitech MX revolution
- Template:La – (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)
- 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)
- Speedy Delete as it is 100%, unadulterated spam Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- Comment. Please remember that "I like it" is an argument to be avoided in AfDs. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment. Its price doesn't make it notable. The "delete those too" argument is completely inappropriate; it should be obvious that I can read, evaluate, and edit only one article at a time. A such, there will always be some other article that should also be deleted. We're not talking about the Mighty Mouse or the G5 here; we're discussing the MX. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Weak delete. Just another mouse. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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) - Keep and cleanup per Krimpet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'm really amused at how you're happy to tell me what it is or isn't that I'm doing. Your oh-fer at it, so far--but keep trying! I think I'm not asking for something more restrictive than WP:N; I think I'm just interpreting it at face value. I haven't decided anything about the kinds of articles that get written. WP:N tells us that, and it says that the references need to be substantial and meaningful. There are plenty of mice products which are notable: the first mouse itself, the first optical mouse, the first wheel mouse, and so on. I think there's a history of doing deep stories on products that are truly revolutionary or notable--stories, not reviews. Look at all the stories on the Macintosh, or the Corvettes, or the Pentium, and so on. This mouse is not in that class of product; I'll be happy to consider it so if there are books like Corvette: Fifty Years (ISBN 0760311803), The Pentium Chronicles: The People, Passion, and Politics Behind Intel's Landmark Chips (ISBN 0471736171), or Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything (ISBN 0140291776) about it; but right now there aren't. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
- Question. How would you go about substantiating your "depth of coverage" claim? If you can find a way to do so, maybe it would be a good addition to WP:N. Until then, these reviews are just that -- reviews. I've explained here (or in the VX AfD, maybe) about how essentially all products get reviewed--even crappy ones. We can't possibly consider reviews a sign of notability, as review subjects are chosen indiscriminately. Truly notable products have hundreds of thousands or millions of words written about them: textbooks about computer architecture cover the Pentium's internal design, while the manuals for the product alone are more than 5000 pages, plus the books about the team and the way they worked. -- Mikeblas 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply By direct comparison with other comparable products. Most new mouse releases and other peripherals (game pads) don't garner ten thousand words from Anandtech - they usually don't even get their own article. A simple product refresh to the G7 series, for example, might get a passing mention in a weekly buyer's guide or - maybe - a three or four hundred word article. The same goes for coverage in other print magazines - not extensive in the way that a processor or new car release might be covered, but extensive compared to other comparable products.
- Question. How would you go about substantiating your "depth of coverage" claim? If you can find a way to do so, maybe it would be a good addition to WP:N. Until then, these reviews are just that -- reviews. I've explained here (or in the VX AfD, maybe) about how essentially all products get reviewed--even crappy ones. We can't possibly consider reviews a sign of notability, as review subjects are chosen indiscriminately. Truly notable products have hundreds of thousands or millions of words written about them: textbooks about computer architecture cover the Pentium's internal design, while the manuals for the product alone are more than 5000 pages, plus the books about the team and the way they worked. -- Mikeblas 02:53, 31 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. Irene Ringworm 02:43, 29 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? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- By your standards, no mouse would be notable. If this is your position, then please simply state such (as DGG did above and leave it be. If your position is "some mice might be notable but this one isn't", you're going to have a tougher fight with that one. Maybe take the battle to the Logitech 'G' series page and start there? Irene Ringworm 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. I think I've made my position pretty clear, so I'm surprised to see you misinterpret and/or overstate it. I don't think this mouse is notable enough for an article. The article doesn't make the case for it, either. The mouse hasn't won any interesting awards; its development story wasn't notable; its feature set isn't notable. There are notable mouses--they do win awards, they do get coverage beyond just product reviews, and so on. Few mouses are notable -- and that only makes sense. If all or many was notable, how would they be notable? -- Mikeblas 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- By your standards, no mouse would be notable. If this is your position, then please simply state such (as DGG did above and leave it be. If your position is "some mice might be notable but this one isn't", you're going to have a tougher fight with that one. Maybe take the battle to the Logitech 'G' series page and start there? Irene Ringworm 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment Please see above. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- '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)
- Merge per above. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak merge I don't think that you are going to be able to cleanup this entry well enough. MrMacMan 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I took a crack at an NPOV article to replace the marketing sludge in the original article. I tried to avoid the Logitech buzzwords and stick to the specs and notable features, in line with existing articles on computer peripherals. Irene Ringworm 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. it is a lot better. See, if everyone tried to fix the articles instead of deleting them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note I added a "Main Complaints" section and added the Amazon Product review as a source. KjtheDj 20:48, 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. 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. KjtheDj 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Killed the section after appropriate comment by 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) Irene Ringworm 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right; the user reviews at Amazon are self-publishing, and unsuitable for use as references at Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Killed the section after appropriate comment by 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) Irene Ringworm 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, but people may want to use it, if the article survives the deletion process. KjtheDj 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note. One way that other classes of subjects establish notability is with awards. Celebrities, music, books, and so on, all can win awards. So can products; a car might be voted "compact light truck of the year" by a magazine, or win the Caldicott medal, and so on. A mouse, it seems, would be up for an IDEA award, or a "Best in show" or "innovative product" award at a trade show.[4] Has this mouse won anything beyond an "editors choice" award in a comparative review? -- Mikeblas 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- It has won a couple of design awards but the only external sources for this are Logitech press releases. There are dozens of awards which exist for the sole purpose of advertising, so I've tried to avoid including them (even though they may establish notability). Irene Ringworm 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and try to merge more Logitech products together. I understand that from marketing point of view the more pages the better but that's no justification to turn WP into an online catalog. Pavel Vozenilek 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question. So is this a vote to delete or to merge? There are already articles on MX series mice that could be merged into a single article. A vote to delete removes all existing content. Irene Ringworm 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.