Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyxis Corporation

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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete - merger or redirection options can continue to be explored on the talk page. Sandstein 06:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Corporation

Pyxis Corporation (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)

Bad PROMO page, with the content dumped into WP in this page also into CareFusion by a SPA editor (addition here; addition there, complete with the sure-sign-of-paid-editing unsourced content with "TM" marks. The tiny bit that was sourced and not commercial slag that was here and not there, I merged there and added more there to make the parent company page into something decent (diff), and left a redirect here (diff). That was undone (including the unsourced TM PROMO slag) and one crappy-because-it-is-merest-of-passing-mentions refs and one very-brief-report ref and one OK ref were added in this diff. Argh. Please delete this industrial waste, now thrice-dumped into our beautiful project, about a subsidiary of a subsidiary, that is already covered in the encyclopedia elsewhere, better. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article descris the original company before it was acquired and the subsequent divestiture. It now includes appropriate references. It may have started as a problem article, but the current version is acceptable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it duplicates content that is already in WP. Not every sperm is sacred. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 00:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Jytdog if you're going to say the information is represented elsewhere, you need to show us where to suggest merger. Otherwise god gets quite irate. Seafox289 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination.Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cardinal_Health#Acquisitions; not independently notable. Sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; just a business directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Pyxis system appears to be notable - still has quite a lot of contemporary coverage. Perhaps the article could be focussed on the product rather than the company? Rathfelder (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the product already. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable to me as per GNG and basic notability. Mia Watson (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable. Satisfies GNG. I think that an early close under WP:SNOW may be an option here. James500 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested by K.e.coffman to the company that acquired it. Jytdog, I do not see an article on the product--if there is one, we would redirect thee instead, if the name is different. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you meant on their specific branded product. We have the article on the generic product - Automated dispensing cabinet. We tend to not do branded products in medicine but rather the generic. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's a decent article with in-depth sources specific to the company. I would be fine with a redirect, but I think this can stand on its own given the product-centered nature of the company. Where are the refs? (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is oriented to this profduct, and the product is the more improtant, we should merge that article into here. What is not justifiable is having two articles ofor a borderline notable product and the similarly borderline notable company that makes it. Doing that is a 99% sure test of promotional writing. Many people trying to advertise of WP do it, and nobody else except those naoive enough to imitate them . DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles are you talking about when you say "merge that article into here"? I don't know of a separate page about the specific product - the CareFusion article has some info on Pyxis, and that's why I'm fine with a redirect. Where are the refs? (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2018 (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.