Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEI Conlux


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

MEI Conlux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unreferenced company article. BEFORE finds no significant coverage in RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Delete : Aside from the routine announcement of its acquisition, I am seeing little about the company in its own right beyond a product announcement item: .No evidence that it attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Changed opinion after reviewing the sources added today by, though my feeling is that the vending machine development could be better incorporated into the Mars, Incorporated article to illustrate the wider activities by that company. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks AllyD! Note however that MEI Conlux was not ever part of Mars, Incorporated. That was apparently added to the article in 2011 during a cleanup by another editor. Though I'm sure that MEI does make vending machines that sell Mars candy. Markvs88 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that the references ascribe the innovations to a "Mars Electronics International" is the basis for my suggestion that this is better covered in the main Mars article, rather than following around a sequence of corporate structural changes, renaming, divestment and purchase. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I spent a few minutes looking into this. The firm invented the electronic vending machine, so I'd say it's notable. Markvs88 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we don't have inherent notability standards for companies which were first to invent vending machines. We have to rely on whether WP:RS felt it was notable enough to provide WP:SIGCOV about. While you have found two RS that include one-sentence mentions of the company's achievement in this regard, the other sources you've added include the following: (a) a WP:ROUTINE transaction announcement, (b) one press release, (c) an email from a company officer to the FTC, and (d) a receipt . In my BEFORE I saw each of these sources, however, thorough and accurate BEFORE requires critical analysis of each source of the kind I just conducted, not simply googling for any mention of the company and shotgunning it into the article. Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the multiple sources that have been added to the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as per Markvs88 and AllyD. I'm impressed by the Sicco Van Gelder source referring to the company's novel validator fifty years after the Mars company's new approach to vending. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the only WP:INDEPENDENT sources here are three (3) sentences in a 211-page book, and one (1) paragraph in a 241-page book, I'm surprised you take the position that this passes CORPDEPTH on that basis. The other sources Markvs88 added were two company press releases, a payment receipt, and an email from a company officer. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Having looked at the references added, they do not meet the criteria for establishing notability and either fail WP:ORGIND (PRIMARY sources or the information originates directly from a PRIMARY source such as a company announcement) and/or WP:CORPDEPTH (mentions-in-passing). There is no significant in-depth coverage to be found. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG.  HighKing++ 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Coverage is in passing and / or routine notices, not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:48, 22 January 2019 (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.