Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediox

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediox

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

Per the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 4 the speedy deletion of this article was overturned but I am listing this for discussion on whether this subject meets our inclusion standard. As this listing is an administrative action in my role as DRV closer I take no formal position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am gathering that what this business is trying to do is to insert multimedia advertisements onto food service trays. Google News finds two PR website links, as well as some Cyrillic links and OCR mistakes. Arguments for notability at deletion review cited YouTube videos, "Killer Startups", and other unreliable sources. They own a patent, too. And neither "Food Service magazine" nor "Euromonitor International: Market insight: The Market for Consumer Foodservice in the USA" sound like the sort of widely read outside the trade sources that contribute to notability. Come back when these things are in actual use somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia notability policy, the discovery must be independently reviewed. And QSR magazine and Digital Signage News are very credible sources. Google's goal is to insert advertising in search, so it is a business model that should not be penalized by deletion. Especially since the model changed. Cyrillic in the news shows the current heavy presence of the company in Eastern European markets since the partnership with Coby. MDEngineer (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerdis. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can someone independently review this deletion? It seems like the editor, who originally speedily deleted the article now wants to get it erased. After reviewing hundreds of similar company articles, I do not see any advertising there, just facts. The company made several notable discoveries and these discoveries were independently reviewed by the industry magazines like the QSR magazine, where it made the cover (please see links below). MDEngineer (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of Notability Per Wikipedia guidelines, notability depends on the presence in secondary sources (many of which were present in the original article). Here are a few links that should close the questions.

Before the company signed a contract with Coby, it was a restaurant media company and that is the most interesting part, because it was at the start of a new era in digital signage and even I would like to know the story. Here are the links that I found within 2 minutes on google (300K+ hits should probably have many more):

Most important one – a whole article in QSR Magazine (printed and online), an industry publication. Featured on the cover of the magazine [[1]]
Featured in Food Management magazine. "Tray of the future?" [[2]]
Killer Startups Review (independent, but surveyed the company) [[3]]
Fudzilla's breaking news on Mediox + Gigabyte partnership [[4]]
Press release by the Methuselah Foundation: President of Mediox, Inc donates 1% of company shares to the Methuselah foundation [[5]]
Digital Signage News newspiece: Mediox to introduce multimedia food trays [[6]]

MDEngineer (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick Service and Fast Casual Restaurant does not strike me as the sort of news outlet that has the broad readership needed to turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. Your prize source doesn't even have a picture of a working model, and I think I know why. All of the stories seem to say the same thing: Here's a new business with a possibly clever idea. It's a startup, and you hired people to get the word out. This doesn't make you an encyclopedia subject. And none of those stories stray far from simply reporting the claims and hopes of the business founders, which isn't quite independent enough in my view either.

It's an intriguing idea, if only on a technical level. I'm curious to find out how you make these things stand up to a dishwasher. (They'll be used in proximity to food and drink constantly. You did plan on making them dishwasher safe, I hope.) But it isn't ready for a stand alone article in an encyclopedia yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Smerdis of Tlön, those independent sources that reviewed the SmartTray like the QSR magazine, were also surprised. In was 2005 no iPhones and Galaxy Tabs were around. Mediox made the prototype, which operated from -20 to +100 and had inductive charging (charged in the tray stand) and filed a patent explaining some of these features [[7]]. That is why a deletion was very strange. MDEngineer (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The QSR article is tempting -- it has a lot of detail but in the end it's clearly fluff, consisting of nothing but quotes from company spokespeople fed to the writer who uncritically passed on everything Mediox wants you to know about them. This is typical of the kind of hype generated by a media-savvy startup company working to create buzz about a future product. Kudos to Mediox's marketing team. I searched the Gale (publisher) databases, Questia and HighBeam and found nothing in truly independent, high quality sources. ReferenceUSA has a brief directory listing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the days of the Smart Tray Mediox did not have a marketing team. It ended up as a shameful mainstream tablet maker (selling about 50K tablets and you can see many independent reviews of these), but back than it focused on reinventing the fast food industry and delivered working prototypes. It is unfortunate that at the end QSRs decided that it it too complex for them. Wikipedia has thousands of company records with much less. Cover article in QSR magazine was originated by QSR magazine. I don't think the group of editors is independent covering one editors unjustified speedy deletion and will no longer argue. There is no point. Nobody even suggested re-writing the article. MDEngineer (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. QSR is lazy then. Quality journalism is expensive and not many outlets do it these days. We still don't have good sources to base a Wikipedia article on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2013 (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.