Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxxsonics (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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxsonics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, very little to say once spam removed. Previous AfD said sources available, but none seem to have been added, only one media source in article, is also only legitimate ref. I like to lean fairly inclusionist, but there is so little to say about this small behind the scenes company that it is blatantly wp:notdirectory at best. B137 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 employees, 1 reliable source, nothing unusual or interesting about the company. I removed all the press releases except for 1. I left that to establish that there is such a company. I'll also make out a report to WP:COIN. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nothing in Google except their own PR. They're not even getting much mention on "caraudioforum.com", except for stuff their own PR person puts on there. They do get mentions such as "I will say you want to avoid the MB Quart products made since Maxxsonics acquired the brand"[1] and "Hifonics was great in the 80's too, but since the brand was bought by Maxxsonics they have become unreliable and don't have accurate power ratings anymore."[2]. So we have no reliable sources, and the non-reliable sources are rather negative. No way to make a decent article on this. John Nagle (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some potential source material: Maxxsonics seeks out prospects for revival, Maxxsonics goal: Stay under the radar to do well in market, [3], Maxxsonics buys Autotek.. --- Jreferee (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new TWICE story from November of this year. It supersedes the archived one because it also mentions the Autotek buy, it also should replace the source to the company's own "History" or "About us" page. Still, these are very brief mentions, do not equal nearly the notability that is generally required, and while I believe that bar is sometimes set too high on a project with virtually no bandwidth or storage limit, this falls far short. B137 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it in for now, but the problem with TWICE is how they sourced this story: "This section of TWICE, "The PR Wire," contains original press releases that reflect the views of the industry organizations issuing them. Releases are not reviewed or edited by TWICE editorial staff. " Shouldn't really be in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah better yet then take it out. This article is a clear delete. B137 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet notability, the only info about the company is press releases that get passed along wire services. Scale is very small, and it does not seem to have much interesting about it. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.