Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milbert Amplifiers (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The 2006 AfD on this company was 'no consensus' but I think the current WP:NCORP notability guidelines for companies makes this article a ripe candidate for deletion. At best this is written by an extreme fan and at worse it's written by the company. The article is very adverty, entirely based on reviews of products in very specialist magazines (the Time article is about a kitted-out car with only the briefest mention of the use of Milbert products), a press release and the company website. There's no suggestion there's every been any general news coverage about the company, or wider interest beyond specialist audio magazines. This sort of information should remain on audio websites, or the company's website, not Wikipedia. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I fully agree that the article is written like an advertisement. However, if it were well written, is the company even notable enough to merit its own page? π♂101 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Of course this article is written and edited by the company. Is there something wrong with that?  Who's more of an authority?  Over the years there's been extremely little attempt -- other than sporadic pot-shotting or nominations for deletion, by wayward anonymous accounts -- to genuinely help improve the article.  So who's left to create and edit?  Does that mean the article shouldn't exist at all because only the company cares enough to write and edit?  By the way, what constitutes "even notable enough to merit its own page"?  Why the seeming broad push to expunge American company info from Wikipedia?  Milbert Amplifiers was formed in 1986, making it among the oldest audio equipment manufacturers.  With small companies, independent press usually covers products and targets specific users or markets - they do not create encyclopedia-oriented content.  Milbert Amplifiers products are notable because they were the first to reintroduce vacuum tubes in mobile applications (after the tidal wave of transistorized amplification swept over the audio industry yet was ultimately found lacking for sound quality) in any meaningful way.  Milbert Amplifiers products are also first to introduce a revolutionary new way to use vacuum tubes in guitar, bass and musical instrument amplifiers.  Patents are forthcoming.  These are niche products, applications, and advancements but does that make them wholly irrelevant?  Inclusion in wikipedia adds credence for any company, but it's a two-way street: When the articles in Wikipedia are written (and decided upon) by alternately anonymous or rabid third-party editors (possibly with hidden agendas), and essentially made devoid of primary, living, first-person sources, what will be left?  Articles talking about "reliable sources" talking about topics - and in that way will Wikipedia diminish and gut itself.  You guys have a monstrous undertaking here; it will be most interesting to see how it all goes. -- Michael Milbert -- mike@milbert.com -- TubeGod (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to comment. This isn't some conspiracy.  Wikipedia has some pretty significant (and not very high) standards for an article's subject to meet to show notability.  The general standards can be found at WP:GNG.  Failing those, there are specific standards for different types of subjects, in this case it would fall under WP:NCORP, which deals with the notability of corporations or organizations. This article does not appear to meet either of those standards.


 * There is also a concept called conflict of interest, which explains why it is not a good idea for interested parties to write articles. This article is a prime example of that policy, since this is not really an article, but more of an advertisement for the company. Nothing precludes interested parties from participating in the process, but they should make an announcement on the article's talk page, and they will be more likely to undergo stringent review, to prevent a non-neutral point of view. The lack of other editors in working on the article is also most likely not a conspiracy, but more a testament to the lack of notability of this company.


 * All that said, please remember that not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards does not reflect on the value of the subject itself. The company may make a very valuable and important product, but if it hasn't achieved notability, then it doesn't qualify. Some of the sources in the current article (#1, for instance) don't even mention the subject of the article. I hope this answers some of the comments.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The article is definitely an advertisement, but that can be fixed through editing. The question is of notability.  Some of the citations (as I pointed out in my comments above) are not about the article's subject, others are pure press release. And when you do a google news search, you only get a single press release. Google newspapers search and Highbeam both return zero results.  However, in my opinion, there are some pretty solid cites in the article.  The Absolute Sound (#2), while a niche journal, is a highly respected one for sound enthusiasts (I wouldn't know, I'm tone deaf, but I asked several musician friends who say that it is very well known), and that article is very in-depth about one of this company's products. Same with the Robb Report Collection article (#3). The Tone article (#4) is a brief, but good mention. #5,6,7 don't go to notability at all. The Vintage Guitar (#8) review is very good. While the rest of the cites might be good, it would be better if they went directly to the articles themselves.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially an advertisement, and that it was written by the company correlates with the total inappropriateness for an encycopedia . If the company is notable, which may or may not be the case, it needs to be started over by an editor without COI. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is not part of a "promotional campaign" - it's been there a long time, and it reads more plainly than many other manufacturers' entries. Published sources and/or links are provided.  Why the lately asserted "need" for complete rewrite?  If it's necessary that somebody unrelated edit or rewrite it, why not take a whack?  This would be a great opportunity to exemplify editing skills.  -- Michael Milbert -- mike@milbert.com -- TubeGod (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)  (We deleted practically the entire article; please rewrite it, or leave as is.  It's presently a single-paragraph followed by published sources, and it's based on the conrad-johnson entry.)
 * Keep Some people make books, music, art, other people (actually use science to) make useful and notable products. Keep, and the article should be restored to this revision. Per Onel5969 the subject meets notability. 009o9 (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though this isn't a person, it's a company, and needs to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral/default keep - it's right on the edge of WP:N. Prior to the recent trimdown I would've said "delete per WP:N is marginal if it exists at all + WP:TNT would cure the problem + WP:Ignore all rules if you don't think TNT applies".  Any references lost in the trimdown which are reliable sources should be copied to the article's talk page for possible future use.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added another Source to page that presents mentions of Milbert Amplifiers in Auto Sound & Security, Time Digital, BMW Roundel, Car Audio & Electronics, Vibe, Car Stereo Review, Newsweek, syndicated Knight-Ridder news, U.S. News and World Report, Vogue, and the book "Auto Audio" by Andrew Yoder (ISBN 0-07-076536-7) -- Michael Milbert -- mike@milbert.com -- TubeGod (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This company has got some good sources as shown above, but the article needs to be maintained by someone else, otherwise WP:NPOV and WP:COI become irrefutable problems if they aren't already. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 15:54, 26 August 2015 (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.