Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Controls

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. The consensus is actually merge to Delta Electronics, but the article has been deleted in the meanwhile. If someone needs the text for merging elsewhere, please contact any administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Controls[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bradv without a ping back to me (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD), and with just this edit summary "Remove prod - article is about a well-established company, and has plenty of sources". I have wasted 20 minutes of my life reviewing those "sources", which are primarily mentions in passing and press releases. Even coverage in trade journals is sparse here, the only one which seems a bit in depth is [1], but the language in that clearly suggests it is a promo puff piece. Summarizing: this entry is entirely based on press releases, mentions in passing and primary sources. Nothing here makes it notable for an encyclopedia, it is a mid-sized business as usual that almost certainly paid a WP:SPA (see Canadalovers24 (talk · contribs)) for this entry. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam, and we should be more vigilant to cleaning it up from our project. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dePRODed it the second time. Passes WP:GNG. Who, how or why it was created is beside the point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you realize that an argument "Passes WP:GNG" is not argument at all; it is a statement of fact and therefore not accepted in deletion discussions, please WP:ITSNOTABLE. And while you are correct the persona of the author has no direct brearing on an AfD, it does serve to illustrate the point that majority of spam articles are created by SPAs. I would urge you to consider whether defending their promotional spam is a worthwhile contribution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company should be subject of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Pretty much all non-trivial coverage cited in the article comes from either explicit press releases or articles that should be considered as press releases judging from their tone. In addition, WP:AUD states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". It seems that great many of the sources used are highly specialized engineering journals of limited coverage and should not be used to establish notability. I'm sure it's a significant company in its line of business, but I fail to find non-specialized independent sources that would provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Unless such are provided, the article should be deleted. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've heard of this company. Considering their advertising budget, I'm surprised there are not better sources available. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delta Electronics. This barely notable company was just acquired (reliable, independent source), a recent development that, I'm guessing, the nominator was not aware of (but the article creator probably was). The parent company, Delta Electronics, is notable; that article should be updated to recognize this acquisition. Best, —Prhart com♥ 14:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with the proposed merge suggested by Prhartcom. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the other article is deleted and thus I go with my original suggestion still to delete, as there's nothing keepable here to its own notability. Redirect to Delta Electronics at best as I would've suggested deleting altogether or deleting and redirecting to the other company, still certainly questionable for own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delta Electronics per Prhartcom above. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and do not merge-- the article for Delta Electroncis is even worse, and I've listed it for CSD G11. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 28 May 2016 (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.