Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traxon Technologies

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 redirect to Osram#Traxon Technologies. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traxon Technologies

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 Redirect to Osram#Traxon Technologies Philg88 ^♦talk 06:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful notability and intent to promote Deb (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion or redirect. The content of this article has been discussed at length, and notability seems to be in doubt. My main gripe is with the promotional wording, which, although it has been toned down by myself and other editors, is still clearly written with the intention of publicising the company - for whom the article creator works. Deb (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I'd done all that. Deb (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment almost all of the sourcing looks like press releases. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Promotional wording and intent to promote are reasons to repair an article not reasons to delete one. What needs to be examined here are the sources so as to ascertain whether this topic is notable enough for a stand alone article, or not. I've looked at the sources and while there are many of them (dozens)-- they are all minor mentions. The question for me is: does the sum of all these minor mentions in the 20+ sources I've seen meet the minimum requirement for "significant coverage" as described in WP:CORP or not? At present I'm not sure of the answer.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Osram#Traxon Technologies, where it is mentioned. I was unable to find more than short mentions in independent sources--not much beyond that this is a lighting company that makes LED panels, operates out of Hong Kong, and was acquired by Osram. Without in-depth independent sources, it is hard to write an article. Thus this topic seems to fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG notability guidelines. That this was a company and is now a subsidiary of Osram is verifiable, however, and Traxon Technologies is a plausible search term, so per WP:PRESERVE, a redirect to the parent company is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a good solution. The sources that do exist could be used to create a solid paragraph in the Osram article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:48, 29 September 2014 (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.