Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MB Quart

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 Maxxsonics. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MB Quart

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

Fails to meet the ORG requirements. I suggest this article is userfied as sufficient information may be sourced in the long term (possibly from other language sources), however few English Google News articles are available to demonstrate impact or justify not redirecting to Maxxsonics. Fæ (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is coverage in Gnews and as the article focuses on the history of this company a simple redirection to Maxxsonics seems insufficient. Dewritech (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete userfy or redirect as per nom. Its two lines of uncited content. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. MB Quart was quite a big name in the 70s to 90s (no comments on their SQ, which was atrocious :) but the $tereophile reviewers, as usually, gave it two thumbs up). WP:ORG is hardly applicable here as it's about the brand (products) not the organization. Current news and magazine searches aren't of much use since the real MB Quart, as I understand, folded down around 2000; presently it is simply a badge plastered on something else. East of Borschov (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you are mistaken about the scope of WP:ORG, it has a section specially about products. There is even a handy shortcut to it: PRODUCT. Fæ (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite right. But redirecting to Hifonics is a very bad choice. The practice does not really support this approach. Hifonics owns rights for the MB Quart badge, nothing more. The situation is akin to the case of Cord Automobile: there is an article on Cord, but it is separate from Aviation Corporation, the company that purchased Cord's wrecked business... Or consider the case of Akai which became merely a badge auctioned by its dealers to the highest bidder. The dealers are perfectly non-notable. Should MB Quart article be written, its referenced part will end up at around 1999, when MB Quarts were last reviewed in mainstream mags. All this info does not belong to Hifonics. East of Borschov (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maxxsonics as they hold the right to the brand name and it is already mentioned in the Maxxsonics article. Movementarian (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 2010 (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.