Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element Electronics


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus has arisen within this discussion. Some users state that the company has received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines, while others question the depth of coverage provided by the sources and the validity of the sources. North America1000 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Element Electronics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure what the motives are behing this article, about a TV import/assembly company. It currently hangs on only 3 lines in a Bloomberg article. The remainder seems to be about a controversy about the products, which was evidently uncovered in the Wall Street Journal in 2014. Someone is now posting original documents in the Wikipedia article to counter the allegations. If this article is becoming a battleground to debate legal outcomes then maybe the article is here for the wrong reasons. It's a newish company that seems to fall short of WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google news search brings lots of independent news articles about this company. - Mar11 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After examining those, all I saw was in fact published and republished PR, so how are we to maintain such republishing is suitable despite said PR? Our policies themselves explicitly state against using such republishing triviality, and hence regardless of supposed significance, are still unconvincing. SwisterTwister   talk  19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I can find at least one source in each year since 2012. CBC Detroit, Tribune Chronicle, The State, Twice, Herald Independent, MediaPost Hang googles (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Note Hang goggles is a CU-banned user
 * Keep while the article itself isn't incredibly good, it definitely meets notability in terms of third party coverage. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please state which policy allows "articles [which aren't] incredibly good but has sourcing"? Because WP:NOT is our highest and important policy and it states against such company listings. SwisterTwister   talk  19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As it is, simply take this as an example of the sheer bareness of actual quality news, let the alone the obvious fact anything existing is simply their own republished words, hence not independent or convincing; what's else is the fact these Keep votes are simply saying "Hey, as long as these sources exist, that's enough" without actually caring to specify and examine them, and if they had, they would've seen the sheer consistency of the company's republished PR words in each of them. Regardless of numbers, that means absolutely nothing and it wouldn't matter because accepting them would damn us as a PR webhost, simply by the equally damning explanation of "Hey, they're at least sources". WP:NOT policy explicitly states this and it's stated because it's the first policy we used for articles and we still use now, mirrored in this case (policy states as it is, that GNG can be damned if policy is otherwise important, and it is in this case like any other AfD). If we want further amusement of advertising, take the history for example where it explicitly shows, not only an imaginably company account started this, but the sheer fact it was maintained exactly that, that's an all too well-known sign the company knew and maintained this article, given they would never in a snowball's chance in hell, learn how our encyclopedia works, especially given they're only advertising themselves! As it is, at least one of the IPs noticeably geolocate to the company's area, worse considering the fact the article always maintained an "About"-esque format. SwisterTwister  talk  05:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and here's why (from the sources above stated as "apparent news")
 * 1 is a republished local news story PR
 * 2 is the same, simply a different republishing host
 * 3 is the same, simply a different republishing host
 * 4 is the same, simply a different republishing host
 * 5 is the same, simply a different republishing host
 * Keep The article's references seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP.   IMO, the company's sole notability is on the issue of American manufacturing jobs.  The elimination of US television manufacturing was big news 20 years ago.  These guys are performing only final assembly in the US, but that is not insignificant... 108.127.196.48 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IP number aside, how is the fact of "big news of manufacturing" subject to satisfying our policies or the fact WP:CORP in fact states "trivial listings are not allowed" which in this case, is exactly it? Simply because it exists or is a significant local economy-business is not significant to us. SwisterTwister   talk  19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – per SwisterTwister's evidence. Not seeing in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (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.