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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic (company)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. "90-day warranty" is not much for a TV. I would expect at least 12 months. Rentier (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text is oriented towards the company's terms of trade and disposal; while appreciating there may be a public service element in this, it sounds just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL retailer. I am seeing nothing to establish encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I won't argue too hard on this one, the depth of content that I was able to discover online as well as being WP:RS is probably just about what was covered here in this article. However, I would disagree and probably suggest that it's WP:STUB-worthy. One side note that I noticed is that the manufacturer has a pretty good niche for TV's on Amazon and Walmart under 20 inches (from personal observation). I think bringing to light the environmental concerns are important on this, seeing as folks probably aren't considering that when they see a cheapo $150 or less TV and probably do some basic research on the manufacturer before buying. In which case, it's definitely not a company which cares about environmental record, and I'd like to shine some light on it, but definitely is not all that transparent with their practices (no good sources to back up the article). And as an aside, I think it's a little amazing how a company can create a whole supply chain for TVs on Amazon and have virtually no history on itself besides marketing WP:PROMO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaded0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

You think that's amazing, look at Symington's, 190 years of operations including some significant impacts on the industry and yet no sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the sources that were cited, I don't see why a Db-g11 wouldn't have been appropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 July 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.