Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shokz

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shokz

Shokz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP by a mile. Company appears to OEM Chinese product, no significant coverage, no notability in evidence. Product reviews are majority of sources, article reads like a product catalogue. Tagged as such, too, since Jan 2022. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I put this page together after researching a number of their products and there wasn't any other place on the internet that brought all of that information together. I figured Wikipedia was the perfect place to consolidate some of that information so that others have a place to reference in a single repository. When I need to know tech specs of a mobile phone or processor family for instance, I often seek out wikipedia directly since it combines all of that information in a single place. While the article definitely needs some more support, I don't believe that deleting it is the right route. It's been some time since I've worked on this page but I just did a search for bone conduction headphones and Shokz/Aftershokz pops up in all of the top hits, mostly in "best bone conduction headphone" type articles so the headphones as well as their development history I believe has relevance. Devilsbane (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, New York, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; also note that non-review sources are mundane corporation moving/articles based off of press releases. Can't find anything significant myself. Defense above does not engage with WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources seem to be mostly made up of a mix of paid-for articles and press releases. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:57, 7 July 2022 (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.