Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmBX


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

AmBX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article, tagged as such since 2012, and sourcing (on the article and a search) does not pass minimum WP:Notability or subject specific (WP:NCORP) criteria. Far too much unsourced content, that indicates original research, with multiple "citation needed" tags. Primary sources are not backed up with reliable and independent sources and several are used repeatedly. 15 of the 21 sources are used in the same section giving the appearance of rebombing. There are unresolved WP:COI issues that confuses me. Unless I missed something the article is attributed to one editor and another    takes the credit with "...I created the page & am not here regularly...". --- Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Incubate in draft space. I was the admin who handled the WP:REFUND request after the article was deleted via proposed deletion; as I stated there, "I'm wondering if it would be prudent to move this article to draft space until is able to get it tuned up." I'm still inclined to give the article some time for development...provided that some work actually gets done on it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: I guess there are no COI issues so I am not opposed to incubation. (See below) If I wandered into the article I would trim the last sentence of the lead and the "Product history" section. This would get rid of 13 "citation needed" tags that have been hanging around since 2012. I would also look closely at the "Adoption" section and possible trimming. Since the article was created, and even since the editor mentioned as "possibly" working on it, that put in two years of editing (2010-2012), technology has advanced. I ran across a couple of sources. The company apparently has entered into a partnership with Cisco and Molex, and others such as Fulham Lighting, meaning the article would certainly need a rewrite along with far better sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTIFY seems like an option if someone wants to work on it; however, as I stated at WP:REFUND, who requested that the article be restored seems to edit infrequently and has yet to comment on whether they would be interested in working on such a draft.  Stevenxlead last edited the article in April 2012; so, unless they can state that are going to be able to work on the draft much more frequently than that or someone else wants to work on it, draftifying this kind of makes no sense because it will eventually just end up being deleted per WP:G13. As long as someone is working on it, then its OK for the draft namespace regardless of whatever COI issues there are (see the REFUND discussion for specifics about the possible COI/PAID editing), but someone has to work on it at least once every six months.If you look at the log for this title, this article was already deleted per PROD back in 2007, and then simply recreated with this edit a few days later by an account whose only edit was to recreate the article. So, it technically shouldn't have been eligible for PROD a second time. If the consensus here turns out that it should be deleted once again, it will not be eligible for REFUND and any attempts to recreate it basically as is will make it eligible for WP:G4. So, I think what needs to be part of any discussion about draftifying this is what to do if it does end up abandoned and deleted per G13. If it's just going to be restored or recreated only to end up be deleted yet again, then that's not really a good thing. So, maybe instead of letting the draft be deleted per G13, it might be better to just delete this now unless someone clearly intends to work on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An issue is that there is notability. #1, #2, #3 (2017), and #4 (2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXIST and WP:NTEMP are good enough reasons to keep and not draftify if the consensus is that the sources you've found are sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. There's no real need to draftify an article about a notable subject simply to work on it; it can be improved in the mainspace by you or anyone else who want to give it a go. COI/PAID editors, however, should follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI, and avoid directly editing the article as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * and, I had a death in the family and my time has been restricted so I haven't done any more than list the sources. I am going to try to look at them but if either of you can, to see if they advance notability, I would appreciate it. I have not gotten too involved in the paid aspect of COI but know I am "generally" against it. What I would be more against is any lackadaisical approach dealing with it. Now, paid editing is a different story to me.


 * WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE states If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace.
 * We try to walk in quicksand when concerns are possibly brushed aside or not given enough attention. A person that works for a company with a high enough position, or is anyway involved in company advertisement, absolutely is getting paid if they create or edit related articles, as compared to someone that just works for a company. The difference goes from: a person should, or might, or other "suggestions", to mandates from the WMF. My problem is that I have not dug into the investigative side. If it is brought up or I see it, I make comments, and usually it either becomes a severe issue or not, because someone else seems to also look into it with more knowledge. The past is the past but becomes more relevant if we are waiting in hopes of an editor that wants the article to remain, but since 2012 has not done any editing, and there are indications of paid editing (noted on the talk page), I have to at least look closer. Since paid editing has become more of an issue (especially between 2010-2014) there may be reasons for keeping a low profile.
 * Concerning this article, I do know promotional articles have been deleted (as opposed to existing in clear violation of policies and guidelines), and should if nobody wants to intercede to try to at least trim it to non-promotional appearances. It is not justification to keep clear company advertising articles just because there is some notability. This is when we consider if the subject would be better served waiting (TNT tipping point) until someone wants to create an article that does not violate policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/draftify per nom. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on the edits to the page today, I do not see a path forward for this topic as an encyclopedia article. Product without significant coverage in independent sources. As said above regarding WP:TNT, I would have no opposition if an independent editor subsequently created a new article based on independent reliable sources that show notability of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments: I am not against any recreation with sourcing per C.Fred. Please note: A discussion that led to the page deletion at User talk:Lyndsayclose (marketing Manager for amBX) "As a business we no longer operate within the video game market and do not produce suitable lighting. I would like to delete the amBX wiki page as it does not reflect our brand anymore and it is creating a confusing message for customers and prospects searching for us on Google. Can you help?". The prod and deletion was apparently and supposedly a path of least resistance but also apparently the opposing editor was not aware of the discussion. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.