Talk:Teseq

EMC is a small but specialized field, this testing is difficult to perform, requires specialized equipment and know-how and is required by law. It is also important for safety and reliability of everything from coffee makers to automobiles (my specialty). Many companies in this admittedly small but important field, are very well known and notable. For example MIRA also provides testing services and has been allowed to remain. I was searching for EMC information for a technical article on Wikipedia, and noted that several noted suppliers are also missing. Teseq is the one that I know best so I decided to write a quick article for others needing information for EMC testing.

The content has been edited to highlight why the subject is notable.


 * There seems to be a confusion between notability in the wikipedia sense and importance. In order to have an article here, any topic needs to be verifiable through the existence of sufficient independent third-party sources covering it. In its current form, this article doesn't pass that threshold. Whether the topic is important or not in the grand scheme of things is immaterial (though without those sources chances are that not enough people have recognized it as important enough to cover it) MLauba (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in my article. Perhaps you were replying to my talk while I was still editing. I think the notability requirement now fulfilled.AutoElectric (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunately not. You need multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic, and these are still missing. To me, this article doesn't pass the needed inclusion criteriae.

I have bought this equipment from this manufacturer before, and I have also used [MIRA Ltd] as a test provider before we had our own test facilities. I certainly don't want their page to be deleted, but I fail to see the difference. Because Wiki is a well-respected source, I often used it to find EMC related information, as well as Google. I will make one more edit that I believe will fulfill the notability requirement. Thanks AutoElectric (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some notable (in our circle) awards are added with independent verifiable references. AutoElectric (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion
This article presents neither positive nor negative information from Teseq. The Author does not make any claims. The information used to present 'notoriety' is from verifiable third party sources.

Request 'notoriety' and 'disputed' be removed. AutoElectric (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No position on the neutrality dispute but as far as I'm concerned we're not yet in a stage where the article is properly sourced through independent third-party reliable sources. You are confusing the Notability in the wikipedian sense with notoriety, which is not the same thing. What Wikipedia regards as "notable" is a topic which has, in effect, been noticed enough by outside publications that it has been covered, extensively. The sources provided don't yet pass that threshold in my view.

Specifically: The first source (tmw) discusses one of Teseq's products but doesn't spend a single word on the manufacturer itself. The second one is a simple accreditation: it testifies that Teseq is recognized by the A2LA. It doesn't describe specifics on the company, in wikipedia speak, it doesn't confer notability to the article's topic. The third one confers notability to the field of EMC, says nothing at all about Teseq. The last one is Teseq's own website, what we call a primary source, and doesn't qualify either.

The way I see it, this article could be put up for a deletion discussion this very moment and get deleted by a wide consensus - in its present state. MLauba (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one maintain neutrality while proving notability? Of course one could show that Teseq is great and make important safety products, with independent sources, but wouldn't that break the neutrality clause? Also, I submit that Boeing is only a company of note BECAUSE of their products. There are lots of other great EMC related specialist companies on Wiki who have similar pages. I'll provide examples if someone is willing to give some advice. Thanks AutoElectric (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute the POV tag still. The user who continues to tag the page POV makes no comment here. AutoElectric (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to add neutral, reliable sources, that are not connected to the company. For example, newspapers, online news sites, journals, magazine articles, books. You might want to read up on Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources where this is all explained in detail. It also would not hurt for you to look over Wikipedia's policy on notability. If you need any help, just ask me. Wacko Jack O   12:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)