Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shure Beta 58A

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The result was Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes, non-admin closure. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shure Beta 58A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable product, has not won any awards or received higher-than-normal accolades. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This mic is a very fine product, but it was never recognized by the industry as being somehow greater than the already-high standard established by Shure. David Bowie and Paul McCartney (among many others) have used it on tour (they have also used other mics), and it has been recommended (among many other mics) by books about sound mixing. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There are a lot of reviews out on this mic, but all within domains that also sell them, failing the concept of 3rd party. Too bad, as it is a great mic based on the SM58 mic which spans the most of the history of modern music. In the end, that alone isn't enough to make it notable via wp:n. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC) See below.[reply]

• • I agree with your appreciation of vendor sites. I offer the opinion that the Beta capsule is not "based on" the SM capsule. Certainly, the shape and physical feel of the Beta 58 is very, very close to the SM58, but the inner capsule is quite different. It's apparent to me that Shure wished to have the number 58 in Beta 58A help the buyer make the connection to the popular SM58, but the microphone's technology is not so much a developmental extension of the SM58's technology; it is something new. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I noticed that this article was a one-sentence stub. There was more information about this mike at Shure SM58 so I proposed that this article be merged there (or that the information be moved to this article). However, Binksternet rightfully pointed out that they are really quite different mikes and he removed the info on the Beta 58 from the SM 58 article (and split the photo). I concur with his actions and I am not against deleting this article (added: that was in its previous one-sentence stub form). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Probably one of the top 10 most popular dynamic mics in the history of microphones, I think an article could conceivably be written about it. With nearly half a million google hits on "Beta 58A", surely there is some minimal coverage in reliable sources. I have tagged it for rescue. —SW— ^yak 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a good point in that the microphone is mentioned in plenty of third party sources, unconnected to the manufacturer. I guess I was applying a sterner expectation of notability in that the product should have won some award, and I had not found that kind of notice. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just found that the microphone won a TEC Award in 1996. I !vote to keep even though I'm the fool who nominated this article for deletion. Sorry for the fuss! Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can withdraw the nom if you feel that strongly about it. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the AfD process at WP:AFD does not include withdrawing a nom. I'll let it play out but with a struck-out argument at the start it will not get deleted. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats fine, I'm sure you are correct. Just for reference, it has always been considered acceptable (and often, preferable) for the nominator to withdraw the AFD if the original reason for the AFD has been mooted within the AFD itself, regardless of the guidelines in wp:afd. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:SK. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply WP:AFD states "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator," which would seem to be reason enough if the nom chose to. Of course, he is never obligated to. That is very different from a Speedy Keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, that settles it. I will try to figure out how to withdraw this thing. I doubt simple deletion will be the answer. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. This AfD is ready to be closed by an administrator. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 8 April 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.