Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrysalis Technologies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 re-creating as a redirect to an appropriate target. -Scottywong| prattle _ 20:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chrysalis Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, a google search will show no news articles, and only 1900 hits Google Search. The company is not even mentioned on the Phillip Morris USA or Altria Group websites. Gsingh (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to article on parent company, Altria Group. Does not warrent a dedicated article. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (maybe with redirect to Philip Morris USA)
Merge with redirect to article on parent company Altria Group.Not enough for stand-alone article.Zad6814:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After this discussion below, changing my !vote to Delete.
Zad6815:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After this discussion below, changing my !vote to Delete.
- Comment: There is no mention of this company on the Altria Group website. Gsingh (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discoverylabs PR, listed as a source in the article, mentions that Chrysalis is a subsidiary of Altria, and seems good enough to support the claim. Also a quick Google search found this news article, and this licensing info page, which say the same thing, and there are other search results that confirm it. This doesn't seem to be a contentious piece of information. I think a redirect with a one-sentence mention of Chrysalis Technologies at Altria Group describing that Chrysalis makes a pulmonary drug delivery device is what's needed here and no more.
Zad6813:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I looked at the possibility of merging and redirecting to Altria#Holdings but the ref used for that section doesn't support it. Doing it as you propose potentially introduces an WP:UNDUE issue. --Kvng (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On further reflection and research, yes you're right. In the first place, the merge & redirect would not even be to Altria Group but to Philip Morris USA, but that article is high-level and so lacking in low-level detail that the mention of this one tiny subsidiary with its one product would be WP:UNDUE. Changing vote to Delete with maybe redirect to Philip Morris USA, nothing to merge.
Zad6815:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On further reflection and research, yes you're right. In the first place, the merge & redirect would not even be to Altria Group but to Philip Morris USA, but that article is high-level and so lacking in low-level detail that the mention of this one tiny subsidiary with its one product would be WP:UNDUE. Changing vote to Delete with maybe redirect to Philip Morris USA, nothing to merge.
- I looked at the possibility of merging and redirecting to Altria#Holdings but the ref used for that section doesn't support it. Doing it as you propose potentially introduces an WP:UNDUE issue. --Kvng (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discoverylabs PR, listed as a source in the article, mentions that Chrysalis is a subsidiary of Altria, and seems good enough to support the claim. Also a quick Google search found this news article, and this licensing info page, which say the same thing, and there are other search results that confirm it. This doesn't seem to be a contentious piece of information. I think a redirect with a one-sentence mention of Chrysalis Technologies at Altria Group describing that Chrysalis makes a pulmonary drug delivery device is what's needed here and no more.
- If you remove this page it will mean a big win to the tabacco monopoly of altria and will be a big loss for all the people who have cancer related from tabacco This company develloped a tabacco vaporizer that could stop all the tabacco smoking in the world by switching to vaporizing but they dont want you to know it , well this page is the proof of that nobody ever heard about this so dont delete it let people get informed.Vjiced (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vjiced, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a forum for advocacy, propaganda or scandal mongering. I know you don't like being pointed to Wikipedia policy but you should read the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy because it directly applies to what you wrote here.
Zad6819:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Zad is absolutely right. The presence or lack of presence of this article isn't going to win any wars. Any content that is backed up by reliable sources can be retained in a merge to the parent company's article in fact. Any altruistic reasons for retaining a dedicated article on the subject do not override the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia however. If you feel this article should stay, only arguments based on WP:N are really going to make a difference here. Otherwise, it's just outside the scope of Wikipedia and would be better covered elsewhere. See also WP:VALINFO, --RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vjiced, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a forum for advocacy, propaganda or scandal mongering. I know you don't like being pointed to Wikipedia policy but you should read the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy because it directly applies to what you wrote here.
- Delete no evidence of notability. bulk of article has WP:NPOV problem and so can't readily be merged. --Kvng (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (ETA: Delete/Redirect fine with me) Just looking at old open AfDs, did not research independently notability of this division, but no need to delete. just merge into Altria.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did research this before opening the Afd, the Altria Group and Phillip Morris USA websites do not even mention this company as a subsidiary. It cannot be redirect to either one. Gsingh (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of WP:V concerns?--Milowent • hasspoken 15:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a peek at the discussion above, we have at least this news article which places Chrysalis as a subsidiary of PM USA. But the issue is more a problem with WP:UNDUE. Look at the Philip Morris USA article, there's not enough there to warrant even one sentence about this tiny subsidiary employing a handful of people working on a single product that I haven't even seen has passed FDA reg's for sale, relative to how the article only mentions in passing the big cigarette brands it holds. It would stick out like a sore thumb. This is why we're thinking Delete with maybe Redirect.
Zad6815:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] - I see, I revise my comment to say that delete and redirect is fine. This article was only started in March to make a negative point about tobacco companies anyway.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a peek at the discussion above, we have at least this news article which places Chrysalis as a subsidiary of PM USA. But the issue is more a problem with WP:UNDUE. Look at the Philip Morris USA article, there's not enough there to warrant even one sentence about this tiny subsidiary employing a handful of people working on a single product that I haven't even seen has passed FDA reg's for sale, relative to how the article only mentions in passing the big cigarette brands it holds. It would stick out like a sore thumb. This is why we're thinking Delete with maybe Redirect.
- Because of WP:V concerns?--Milowent • hasspoken 15:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did research this before opening the Afd, the Altria Group and Phillip Morris USA websites do not even mention this company as a subsidiary. It cannot be redirect to either one. Gsingh (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (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.