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 Moot. this is AFD not RFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InSound Medical

[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks like a dismal attempt at product promotion. Laval (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also nominated: Lyric Hearing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Currently InSound Medical is a redirect to Lyric Hearing, which would appear to share all of the advertising problems of the initially nominated page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lyric hearing and keep this InSound Medical article as a redirect. The NYT source convinces me of the notability of the Lyric Hearing aid. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a justification for keeping them? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the product is notable and redirecting the company to its claim to fame seems a reasonable approach to a possible search term. I wouldn't object to deleting the company page, but if the NYT reviews a single product in depth as the sole topic of an article that crosses the notability threshold for the product quite easily. Additional sources are this article that devotes a paragraph in the discussion to discussing the Lyric hearing aid and this newspaper article that discusses the aid in detail. Tim Vickers (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Lyric Hearing article and the InSound Medical redirect. Sources on the article seem sufficient for notability regarding the product, and the company name is a reasonable search term for the redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (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.