Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NZXT (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NZXT

AfDs for this article:

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

NZXT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A couple of product reviews, but fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Deleted several times before. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a majority of the search results are reviews, but in my opinion many of them meet WP:PRODUCTREV anyway. Saucy[talk – contribs] 02:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary post

    PC Magazine called NZXT "a popular PC desktop case vendor".

    TechRadar called NZXT "famous for its PC cases and related accessories (such as cooling solutions)".

    PC Gamer noted that NZXT "is best known for its line of computer cases, and less so for its power supplies" and that NZXT "developed a reputation as one of the few innovators in the space" of PC cases.

    Bit-Tech said, "As PC hardware companies go, NZXT has been pretty successful in recent years." It further noted that NZXT "cases rarely if ever disappoint and usually sport modern, even groundbreaking features while it also offers some of the best all-in-one liquid coolers too".

    The sources note that the company is California-based, was founded in 2004 by Johnny Hou, acquired gameplay video app maker Forge in 2018, collaborated with Blizzard Entertainment to create a special PC case for OverWatch, and collaborated with other companies to create special PC cases for the video games Fallout.

    Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Fails in WP:CORPDEPTH. As others have pointed out, there is much trivial and routine coverage, e.g. 'case manufacturer releases case', but these are explicitly listed as not being significant coverage — because what else would they do? The issue isn't verifiability, which is what most of the 'keep' references are related to, it's that the company lacks notability. ogenstein (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More sources:
  1. 9to5Mac: "NZXT is well-known in the custom PC world for making quality cases and now motherboards"; Campanale, Patrick (August 9, 2019). "NZXT announces the H700 Nuka-Cola, a Fallout-themed computer case". 9to5 Toys. 9to5 Mac.
  2. PCMag called NZXT "a popular PC desktop case vendor"; Kan, Michael (November 9, 2018). "Why PC Builders Should Stock Up on Components Now". PCMag.
  3. VentureBeat called NZXT a "big-name component manufacturer"; Grubb, Jeff (October 10, 2018). " "Asus, NZXT, and more launch Z390 motherboards for 9th-gen Core CPUs". VentureBeat.
  4. Polygon: "PC hardware manufacturer NZXT, best known for their line of cases, power and cooling products..."; Hall, Charlie (June 6, 2017). "New PC builder promises 60 fps or your money back". Polygon.
  5. AnandTech recently called NZXT a "renowned case and cooling manufacturer"; Bonshor, Gavin (May 30, 2019). "NZXT Refreshes H Series, New H510 Elite Chassis With RGB". AnandTech.
  7. Villas-Boas, Antonio (July 28, 2018). "Here's every part you'll need to build Ninja's gaming PC where he plays and streams 'Fortnite'". Business Insider.
  8. Liao, Shannon (August 9, 2018). "This custom Fallout computer case brings you a piece of the Wasteland". The Verge.
Saucy[talk – contribs] 03:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope creep wrote and then removed one minute later this comment:

    I'm getting a bit annoyed by these source dumps in Afd's User:Cunard, particularly for companies that dont support the effort. It was bad enough that we are now stuck with PureVPN that for the average reader now thinks is a good VPN provider, by a quick glance at the article, when in fact they are absolutely terrible and are known to leak the customers ip/dns addresses, and any quick look at the web will you tell you that. Now that we have the article with a nefarious notability that is less than useful. I admire the fact when your reference research works in others area, where in that instance the work has been truly excellent,and I have relied on it in the past. I think by the addition of these large source dumps within Afd it imposes a kind of constraint on the conversation that wouldn't otherwise be there, and occasionaly it pushes a kind artificial scope_creepTalk 08:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

    I am replying here since I was pinged.

    I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN: "Why am I supporting retention? I believe there is value to the readers in providing an article that summarizes sources explaining how PureVPN is subpar." An editor replied, "But no version of this article, either now or when it was rather longer at the start of April, has 'explained how PureVPN is subpar'. Instead it has all been anodyne corporate woffle." After the AfD closed, to address these concerns I rewrote the PureVPN article to summarize the negative coverage I found. The article's lead says, "The service has been criticized for having inconsistent speeds, being unable to access Netflix videos, and having usability problems." The PureVPN Wikipedia article contains plenty of negative coverage and criticism. It is unlikely that "the average reader now thinks is a good VPN provider" after a "quick glance" at the lead or after reading the article.

    Thank you for your kind words regarding "I admire the fact when your reference research works in others area, where in that instance the work has been truly excellent,and I have relied on it in the past.".

    During my research for this AfD, I found 25 reliable sources about what NZXT has done and created. I posted my findings here with a collapsed box containing relevant quotes from the articles. How does posting the 25 sources I found "impos[e] a kind of constraint on the conversation that wouldn't otherwise be there"? It is clear from the article titles that they are about NZXT's work. I posted these sources to show that NZXT has received sustained analysis from multiple independent reliable sources about what it has done and created. Dismissing the sustained coverage from these independent reliable sources as being "Run of the mill" or "business news" or "reviews" is not a strong argument for deletion.

    Cunard (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I removed that comment as I thought it was unsuitable and not really called for, as I think reference dumps are a net positive. I never even realised it was posted until I saw it the revision history and removed it accordingly. It must have fired off an event. scope_creepTalk 11:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reconsidering your position about "reference dumps" and finding these lists of sources to be a net positive. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more discussion of Saucy's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article has reliable sources. CryptoWriter[talk 12:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a teeny part of the overall criteria for establishing notability. The sources also have to be about the company, in-depth, significant, independent, etc. Can you point to a reference that meets the criteria? HighKing++ 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:CORP in light of WP:PRODUCTREV. The listed reviews (particularly the ones from reliable sources PC Magazine and PC Gamer) are in-depth, and not the trivial/routine pieces excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment *If* the article was about a *product*, then you'd be correct. The guidelines in WP:NCORP are for either organizations *or* products/services. The article is written about the company and not about any specific product/service, therefore the criteria for product notability doesn't apply. HighKing++ 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      NZXT is a company with multiple similar products that have individually received in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Under WP:OVERLAP, the articles for these products should be merged into a single article, and NZXT is the most appropriate location for that article. Here, an article on the company (i.e. brand) becomes a broad-concept article under WP:DABCONBRAND, with the articles on the individual products subsequently being merged into the article on the company under WP:PRODUCT and WP:OVERLAP. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The starting point for an article on NZXT is whether the company is notable or not. Your argument that all their products are notable and therefore should be merged under an NZXT banner is not supported by any of the guidelines you've pointed to. WP:PRODUCT starts by saying - If a company is notable .... Well - that's what we're trying to reach a consensus on here and as it stands, there aren't two references that meet the criteria for notability and therefore this topic doesn't pass the notability guidelines. WP:OVERLAP comes into play if there is a large overlap between articles and WP:DABCONBRAND uses the example of the "Microsoft Lumia" phone (and all its versions). My suggestion is closer to this idea - an article on "NZXT Keyboards" which discusses the products (keyboards) and I believe that should pass the notability guidelines even if editors apply a strict view of them. HighKing++ 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the amount of work by Cunard in finding sources, it appears that the sources are mainly about the products and not about the company itself. There are no sources showing that the company has received significant coverage. The article topic is the company. I believe that should the article be changed so that the topic is one of their better known products, it would likely pass. But this article fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll work on adding a products section. Saucy[talk – contribs] 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the solution. If the article topic is the company, the starting point is to see if the company is notable. Adding a products section doesn't make it notable. HighKing++ 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated on the products section with 20 additional sources. But I just want to say, HighKing, it would seem very counter-intuitive and inefficient to have an article on each of their products but not one on the company itself. Saucy[talk – contribs] 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on the point about having products but no company in WP, the problem here is that the company isn't notable and so nobody has written about it (and vice versa). Hopefully this is clear by now. Meanwhile, the gaming PC press has a lot of time on its hands. To properly review gaming equipment (and other stuff as well), a place needs to build a lab because otherwise nobody will take your reviews seriously and worse, no one will advertise on your site. And once you have a lab, you need to keep the assembly line humming or it won't pay for itself, and so an endless stream of very extensive (but mostly meaningless) product reviews follows, replete with accompanying affiliate links. And Wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOGUE.
Obviously, I don't think either the company or any of its products warrant a page. That said, alternatives to deletion are worth considering. Putting the company aside for a moment, it's not like their products are the iPhone or the original IBM PC. Neither the Compaq Portable or DeskPro 386 have their own pages and they're actually significant products with massive effects on a much larger industry (all of personal computing) and the general public as well. NZXT is a small, private peripheral supplier that operates in a niche — providing cases for gaming PCs — with a lot of similar competition. None of their products have made a dent in the world beyond that. Look at the additions meant to improve the page… if the letter 'i' is in the model name then it comes with decorative lighting (did they really call this minimalist design?). This is minutiae, a catalogue and non-encyclopedic.
The only public discussion of the products occurs in the review industry press. They seem to be successful in their business but will that ever make the company or their products notable? I don't see it. I think that applies to all of the case makers (as well as other parts suppliers).
I'd rather see an article like 'Third-Party PC Cases' or 'Gaming PC Parts' (I'm sure someone could come up with something better) which could discuss the whole sector and could conceivably cover white-label box makers as well — I've read articles which discuss how companies like HP select and purchase cases for the systems they sell and there are countless articles about the PC supply chain. It could include the more significant players in the business (like the four mentioned above), historical moments like when the first gaming PC was released, first third-party case supplier, etc…, including, if someone could dig it up, some facts about each of the companies like when they were founded, when they expanded into international markets, how large they are, or any financial or organizational information. This would save people from a host of stublike pages, take advantage of general articles that don't focus on a specific small company (which are rare), and provide some context that would apply to all of the companies. ogenstein (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2019 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NZXT_(2nd_nomination)