Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Bionics

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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to Sonova. If anyone would like a temporary restoration of the article into their userspace for the purpose of facilitating a merge, just ask. A Train^talk 07:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Bionics

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

Company is barely notable subsidiary of another company Sonova, the article of which is thin. There has been a long-running slow edit war to keep this page independent or merge the content into the Sonova, where it fits very easily. The content is merged there now, so you can see that easily. In my view this should be deleted; the Sonova article easily encompasses this. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is quite notable as it is the second largest producer of cochlear implants, and all of the implants are branded as "Advanced Bionics." MED-EL, a much smaller cochlear implant company, has an article, and many subsidaries have articles, like Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions being a subdivision of Cochlear Limited; Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions is an article despite being smaller than Advanced Bionics, Advanced Bionics wasn't always part of Sonova, and Sonova does not have as much name recognition as Advanced Bionics. For cochlear implant brand comparisons, nearly all audiologists call the company by Advanced Bionics instead of the parent company. There was no full consensus to the merge based on the talkpages for AB and Sonova,(50% want seprate, 50% want merge) and Jytdog just merged the articles by copy+paste and a redirect instead of creating a merge discussion. This was my first article, and it has been improved over time, hence it has been added back. On grounds of notability there are far smaller hearing device company subsidaries on Wikipedia, and as the second largest cochlear implant producer it should have its own cross-linked article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This never happened {{Mergeto|Sonova}}, content was moved without consensus. Content should not be merged without a merge discussion, especially if there is disagreement.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree not notable as an independent article. Merge bit that is to parent company Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At Talk:Sonova#Child companies and Grand-Child companies User:CerealKillerYum suggested Advanced Bionics should have a separate article as did I, but the articles were merged by User:Jytdog despite the opinion of notability being 2-2.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic does not appear to have independent notability nor have enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more sources--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here you added mostly directories, passing mentions, press releases, and churnalism based on press releases. Notability is determined by independent secondary sources. And none of that addresses the fact that this article fits very comfortably inside Sonova and there is no justification for splitting it. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for "spliting"

It's not even spliting; if you wanted to have merged them you should have added the template "Merge:Sonova" to the page instead of copying and pasting.
Of the "big three" cochlear implant companies, companies, the other two have articles. MED-EL is much smaller than AB but still has its own article
Hearing company subsidaries do get their own articles on even less notable topics. Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions has barely any name recognition since BAHAs are in the new less than CIs.
AB wasn't always part of Sonova. In term of name recognition, only recently is the name sonova associated with AB and in most articles, blogs, and journals comparing the three major brands refer to Advanced Bionics as Advanced Bionics, often not even mentioning Sonova. If you read AB user manuals, catalogues, It's hard to find "Sonova" anywhere.
As far as subsidaries go, AB is recognized by the general public as a cochlear implant company before part of Sonova. In terms of branding, all AB hearing devices are marketed as Advanced Bionics. Someone who reads a pamphlet about an Advanced Bionics device would probably not associate it with Sonova.
Here's the Naida Q90 user guide. The word Sonova does not come up once. [1]
If the name of the company had Sonova in the name, then merging would be ok. However, nothing about the name indicates it is associated with Sonova. (Unlike most subsidiaries, Ex Delta Private Jets belonging to Delta Airlines, Aeroflot-Don of Aeroflot, Alitalia CityLiner of Alitalia...etc)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't considerations here in WP. I understand that they are why you want it to be separate. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and protect- since the content appears to have been merged into Sonova, deleting outright would be a problem regarding proper attribution. However, this is clearly unsuitable for a stand-alone article per nom. Redirect to get rid of this as a separate article while preserving the history, and protect to put an end to the ongoing edit war. Reyk _YO! 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2017 (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.