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 --JForget 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aptina[edit]

Aptina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article in the current state is so badly written that it is unsalvageable. It is written entirely as an advertisement, and no amount of tinkering will change that. My recommendation is: Delete current version, but without prejudice against recreation as a real encyclopedic article, by an uninvolved editor. To summarize: there is nothing in the current version that is worth keeping; the subject itself may (or may not) be notable, and a good article may (possibly) be written about it; but this just isn't it, this is a blatant, horrible piece of advertising. If there should be an article on this topic, it must be re-written from scratch. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopeless spam for probably-non-notable (just announced today!) by badly-COI editor. Creator has admitted to having a relationship to the company and has threatened to real-world investigate another WP user who revealed the existance of this product line before it was supposed to be public, so his "I saw a press release" genesis for the article is how shall I say, a load of crap. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, "load of crap? Sorry. I thought it was honest. Since I was looking at the press release. I did not write the release. SoTureForYou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Further, what qualifies as notable? The division has about 600 employees and is the second largest maker of CMOS image sensors in the world. Last, year it was the largest, but fell to number two when its largest customer stumbled. And I mentioned the fact that the company stumbled in the article. I thought I was providing a neutral point of view by mentioning that it had fallen to the 2nd position. If it was spam, as you conjecture, why would I have included that fact?SoTureForYou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It is true I do have a relationship with the company. But 90-percent of the folks that post on wikipedia have a relationship to their topic. Aptina was slandered last week. DMacks knows that as DMacks deleted the slander. We were trying to provide a good baseline about this company so that it could get fair treatment. As much as possible, I have tried to link to outside articles. I have been using Intel and other company listings as a sort of model. SoTureForYou (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)SoTureForYou (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty spammy, there. I'd suggest a merge of key points into the Micron Technologies article, and if one day the Aptina division is notable on its own, then create a standalone article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, I understand your suggestion to add this content to the Micron article, but Aptina was seperated for sale. It is likely to be a stand alone company this year. It is also very important in the industry. If you own a camera phone, there is a 33-percent chance it has an Aptina CMOS image sensor on board.

• Delete per WP:SPAM. Someone needs to do something about all those images with big ol' Aptina logos and no licensing information, as well. (I'm not familiar enough with image deletion to know what to do.) Deor (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be an approiate size for the images? The company makes image sensors. I noticed that Nikon has several product images in their article. Why is showing a company's product, as in the Nikon case wrong?SoTureForYou (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Nikon article has pictures of Nikon products. This one, on the other hand, has galleries of images made with the product, and many of them bear a logo that could be construed as advertising. The main problem,, however, is that the image uploads lack any licensing information—for them to be on Wikipedia, whoever holds the copyright has to release them under a free license, essentially allowing anyone to reuse them (with acknowledgment) in any way they see fit. Deor (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry that you think I am a poor writer. I am trying now to improve it. It meets all of the neutral writting standards I have been able to find. So I am not sure what else you suggest. Also regarding the images, I do not understand why these are a problem. I have checked out several company articles all of which include product images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Spam and WP:CRYSTAL violation. A new article may be needed someday, but this isn't it.
• Delete as spam. Note also there are large swaths of copyright violations such as text taken verbatim from here -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the material is attributed or used with permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 March 2008 (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.