Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxxsonics


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maxxsonics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page describes small, non-notable company, content is a sub-brand list and list of key employees. Most contributions to page by single-purpose account. Company is looking for new editor for this page:. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 00:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Company is not seeking a new editor for this page, they are seeking an editor to work on a Coconut Water project that is not related to Maxxsonics. I have this direct from the Marketing Director H. Christopher Parvin.  He chose to post without creating a new profile until they decide whether to go forward with that project.


 * This is not a non-notable company as they are a major brand distributor and manufacturer of audio electronics that sells multiple product lines in multiple countries. The firm is waiting until the annual CES (consumer electronics show) in January to update product lines and website.  They have contacted me and asked me to hold off on updating more content until after the launch at CES.  If the company is looking for a new editor of this page they will contact me directly as they have done in the past to provide licensed artwork and requested revisions to same.  Please do not delete this page as it will be updated as the company increases their internet presence.  Thank You.  Gmuth71 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia user Gmuth71


 * Dude, you really need to have a read of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Being a paid editor for the company or being asked directly by the company to edit their Wikipedia article (and only their article) is an obvious conflict of interest which is always strongly discouraged. You're unlikely to get very far with the argument that editors here should "hold off" on discussing an article's deletion because the company wants you to add more information about its new product lines. Stalwart 111  02:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Duuude - I am not a paid editor and I am not asking anyone to hold off the discussion, I am responding to the notion that the page isn't well filled in by pointing out that the company and its product line will be changing after CES in January. When did wikipedia change from being a free site for all to post factual information into a judgmental 'my contributions are better than your contributions' club of wiki-snobs?  I'd love to contribute more on wiki but right now I hold 3 jobs...in reality......outside the interweb.  Thanks.  Gmuth71 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia didn't change - Wikipedia has never been the place to promote a business, whether you are being paid to do so or your are being asked to do so as a volunteer. Stalwart 111  01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Providing factual information is not promotion, there is a vast differentiation between promotional literature and fact. Are you sure you understand wikipedia or are you having a bitter moment because this page is factual.  Witch hunt anyone? Gmuth71 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Providing factual information can be promotional and this is a great example. WP:PROMO is as much about context as it is about content and goes hand-in-hand with WP:NOTHERE. Factual is one thing - an encyclopaedic summary of the company's history, product lines, key people, financial history, important breakthroughs, etc. Promotion is another - dot-point lists of company products, logos with direct links to product promotional pages and very little encyclopaedic information. This article represents the latter. I don't doubt the information is factual, in fact I'm sure it is. But it is not presented in an encyclopaedic fashion from a non-promotional neutral point of view. Those are not reasons to delete (and you'll notice I've not actually "voted" for deletion) but if the article is not cleaned up you'll have a tough time convincing other editors that this is a good faith attempt to build Wikipedia. Stalwart 111  02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a sign of good faith, I've had a crack at editing the article to bring it into line with Wikipedia's manuals of style - removing BOLD headings, direct links to company sites from within the article, bold and italic names of products (just not necessary) and some dot-point style "information" from each of the sub-sections. I've also created a new "history" section. These articles can often be saved and this is a fairly large company that would seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. But pictogramming a company press release and calling it a Wikipedia article will not get you very far. Stalwart 111  03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank You Stalwart for your editing for WP:MOS and providing some useful feedback. This admitted wiki-noob is happy to take constructive criticism under advisement. Gmuth71 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I would again, though, counsel against editing with a conflict of interest. This is strongly discouraged for a range of reasons. Hiring editors or giving instructions to editors or using Wikipedia to promote or raise awareness of a company is always frowned upon. If you really are in contact with the company's marketing director (as you suggest above) then I would strongly counsel you to advise him not to "engage" Wikipedia in that way. It can only end badly for him, the company and probably for you. Stalwart 111  03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * CES is not aware that Maxxsonics will be exhibiting at CES 2013. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 03:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, CES is not a listed exhibitor but will be exhibiting in the area directly surrounding the CES show. I have queried the company for further details.  Whaledad, clearly you are not versed in the audio electronics industry. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you care to peruse the information, here are several resources supporting Maxxsonics participation in CES 2013 as well as the upgrading of the company's several products and product lines. Maxxsonics 2013 CES Launch Activities, 12 Volt News Article 'Maxxsonics Welcomes All, CES 2013 Events, CE Outlook Article, Maxxsonics collaborates with West Coast Customs to Provide Amps and Speakers Under the West Coast Customs Brand Name Gmuth71 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I take serious offense to your claim that my contributions here show that I'm not versed in the audio electronics industry. More important however is your claim that your links show that Maxxsonics is participating in CES 2013. Your links ONLY show that Maxxsonics is in Las Vegas at the time of CES 2013 and is organizing a few gatherings close to CES 2013, thereby flagrantly abusing the CES trademark and logo. I hope you understand (and make your buddy at Maxxsonics understand) that this is a serious faux pas for which CES could potentially claim a large amount in damages. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A Google News search reveals the subject could squeak by with a very small article that passes WP:V, but the current article is WP:NOT as a directory of product listings and promotion. It could be a decent 3-paragraph article. In these cases, editors will most likely take the path of least resistance, to delete the article until an impartial editor takes an interest, rather than deal with COI issues on such a small article. Unless of course the AfD process itself makes an editor take an interest in improving it in the interest of saving the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear as though it matters not if I as the original author would make edits to trim the article and make it more conforming to the points made in this discussion, although if a consensus would allow that in order to consider not deleting the article, I will gladly make such efforts in the next week as time allows. IF no, please advise and I will heed the advice and suggestions during future edits of other topics (again as time allows).  Thanks Gmuth71 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sourced by independent sources, created by an SPA, and not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'non-notable' comment is a restatement of original author of this deletion discussion article and has been successfully disproved by the same discussion above. All sources are non-SM generated and independent and additional sources have been added to the discussion above. Would disagree with the 'SPA' accusation but have nothing to support that at this time due to the constraints of time and other responsibility this author must tend to. Gmuth71 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see where notability has been proven. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A quick search through ProQuest Newsstand revealed the following sources, in addition to the ones already used in the current WP entry:
 * Because reliable, independent, secondary sources provide significant coverage (albeit at a local level), the company meets WP:ORG. Even if the article was edited by an SPA with a COI, that's not grounds for deletion. Instead, the article should be tagged for further editing by an unbiased user. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because reliable, independent, secondary sources provide significant coverage (albeit at a local level), the company meets WP:ORG. Even if the article was edited by an SPA with a COI, that's not grounds for deletion. Instead, the article should be tagged for further editing by an unbiased user. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because reliable, independent, secondary sources provide significant coverage (albeit at a local level), the company meets WP:ORG. Even if the article was edited by an SPA with a COI, that's not grounds for deletion. Instead, the article should be tagged for further editing by an unbiased user. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 12:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - COI issues not withstanding, company meets WP:ORG. Additionally, User:Gmuth71 should be topic banned from editing this article. (At least until such time as the editor understands how Wikipedia works) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Sue Rangell there are sufficient secondary sources. That said, the article needs to be attacked with a machete, and I concur with topic banning Gmuth71 from this article. PianoDan (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an absolutely notable company, and in the article tere are reliable sources. Samuel petan (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (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.