Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypex Electronics

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. There is a fair consensus for keeping the article, after extended time for discussion. Advocates of deletion note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, but the extent to which this applies to the notability of a company that manufactures notable products is unclear. Examples suggest that the notability of the manufacturer does not render its product notable, but it does not appear to be as well-established that notability of the product is equally ineffective with regard to notability of its manufacturer. A rename has been proposed after other editors presented their opinions, and should be re-filed as a WP:RM. BD2412 T 03:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypex Electronics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prod removed with some new references, but I am afraid they are still not in-depth about the company and/or press releases or based on such (WP:ROUTINE business as usual). So I am still concerned this fails WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search for "hypex ucd" brings back many detailed sources that can be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333: You should now better that WP:GOOGLETEST is not sufficient. Which sources are good? "AVHub (press release)"? "AVHub (press release)"? Also, those are reviews of a product (Hypex UcD). A product can be notable while its parent company is not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the IEEE Spectrum article has quite substantial coverage. The wiki article had some marketing language, but that is now removed, and the wiki article has been here since 2005. Apoc2400 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Apoc2400: You know that WP:NOTINHERITED? The article is about a specific product (Philips UcD Audio Amplifier) which may be notable. That article contains about one and a half sentences about Hypex: "One of those early licensees was an audio startup called Hypex Electronics. Hypex soon began producing a version of the UcD...". This is not in-depth, significant coverage as required by GNG and like. Seriously, how can you argue that one and a half sentences represent "quite substantial coverage" coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is about a specific product (Philips UcD Audio Amplifier) which may be notable" - As you can see, I have expanded the article to include other products mentioned in audio specialist magazines. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now the company products gets reviewed in the places where one would expect, like Guitar World Magazine, Audio Express, their components used in other products like this one at Sterophile Magazine. Wm335td (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Hypex UcD. The article is currently mostly about the company's UcD products and the reliable sources noted above by other editors are also mostly about the company's products, so morphing this article via a rename to focus on the notable content and available sourcing seems a reasonable way to preserve, rather than delete, verifiable information per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references that provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the *company* and containing independent content on the *company* and while a lot has been written about the products (as noted by the Keep !voters above), this does not translate as notability for the company. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no references that provide significant coverage" .... "while a lot has been written about the products" - surely without the former, the latter would be impossible. The review of the Hypex NCore 400 kit (that I just added to the article) would certainly seem to be "significant coverage", and neutral, giving it criticised the lack of inputs other than XLR on the module. The assertion that writing about the products cannot be done in an article about the parent company seems incorrect based on other articles I have improved to rescue from AfD, including Kelly's of Cornwall and Lees of Scotland. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guidelines, there's nothing specific that says a review of a product/service/etc cannot be used to establish notability of the company but in my opinion, for that to occur, the review must provide information on the company itself that meets the criteria (significant, in-depth, independent content). WP:PRODUCT makes it clear that information on a product may be included in the article about the company but that if the product is notable in its own right it may also have its own separate article. In summary, while we have references that discuss the products of this company, we have still not found any references *about the company* that meet the criteria for establishing notability. As such, the company fails the criteria for notability and articles about their products (that do not provide coverage on the company) do not confer notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, with stress on WP:YELLOWPAGES/WP:NOTINHERITED. A product can be notable while its producer is not, just like a notable book does not make its author notable automatically, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good example? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most architects firms (who worked on famous buildings), record labels (who have famous artists), art galleries (who exhibited a famous art work), some manufacturers of popular consumer goods such as the Rubik's Cube ... there's loads of examples. Hang around AfD long enough and you'll see for yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles on Ernő Rubik, Rubik's Cube and Ideal Toy Company (manufacturers of the cube). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a lot of articles about video games (or board games) that are notable but their publishers are not. Of course, sometimes it may mean the article needs to be created, but for most small companies, it's rather hard. For example, Scythe (board game) is a major board game title, but I doubt its publisher is notable, ditto for the designer. Or consider GMT Games. A bunch of titles it publishes are notable, but frankly, that article does not suggest the company is (but I haven't researched it yet). Or Polanie (video game), a cult Polish video game, whose publisher is certainly no notable... Or the publisher of Bleach: Brave Souls that I recently stubbed, through again, I haven't researched the company yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:23, 23 January 2020 (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.