Talk:Accuphase

A query about sources of information about Accuphase

I have been trying to find reliable sources of information about the company to prove notability - and found it very hard to find any!

A Google News Search yields about 380 hits, but they are all basically reviews and advertising. Yes, some of them mention how "one of the best on the market, at $7000 is the Accuphase xyz" kind of thing - but none of them seem to have a significant amount of information other than product names and prices.

A Google book search is the same - either adverts, or saying that an Accuphase xyz was used.

A Google Web Search yields about 397 thousand hits. I'll be honest, I've not looked through them all, but the first 500 hits were either the company's own website, or reviews, or people saying "Accuphase make great kit", or wiki articles based on this wikipedia article.

So, my question is... can anyone find reliable sources to show that beyond making expensive equipment, this is a notable company with verifiable information in the article?

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. - I can't find anything that meets this criteria.

Can anyone provide citations that meet Wikipedia's criteria - or should this article be removed, as it does not meet the notability criteria? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of reviews of the company's product in respected publications, such as the New York Times. This is enough to deserve an article, in my opinion. If you have the patience, adding links to a few of the reviews would be worthwhile. The article would most likely be kept at AfD. While the article could be improved, I think it is OK for what it is; it does not make extravagant claims. Finding some reliable sources that discuss the company itself would be good but documenting a small company is sometimes hard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)