Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TMB Optical (2nd nomination)

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.  Sandstein  16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TMB Optical (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:CORP. TMB existed for maybe 20 years, and it's not clear quite when they went out of business (the Wayback Machine's last hit is in 2014, and it looks like activity was spotty and the site was rarely updated before then). According to their now-defunct website, they were founded in 1990. For a company producing a technical product in the US during the 90s and 2000s, they should have at least some significant web footprint. But they don't. 194 ghits is it, and a lot of these appear to be false positives (something called "TMB optical density" is relevant in certain biochemical assay processes). There's also a variety of mentions on forums and used telescope equipment dealers, but nothing reliable or significant.

It looks like TMB's optics were important to a core of high-level amateur astronomers in some parts of the US, and might've been known elsewhere, but there's just not enough coverage. They got briefly profiled a few times in blogs, podcasts, and niche journals, but that's just it... all brief coverage. Much of the coverage came in the wake of Tom Back's sudden death. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge usable content to Apochromat, the article has a section on photographic uses for the lens, nothing on telescopic uses. A search on "Thomas M. Back", founder and lens designer returns some interesting content. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. That's an interesting thought but I'm not sure there is any useable content for that subject. It's not like TMB Optical invented the apo lens. Also, this article is about the company Back founded, not himself. I really don't think it'd be a good redirect either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the founder himself then? Perhaps. - Mathmo ^Talk 06:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No article on him, and I'd argue an article on him wouldn't pass WP:GNG anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete altogether as the current article actually contains nothing keepable for notability including minimally and thus is not acceptable, there's nothing convincing from my searches. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. As alluded to above, "TMB" is Thomas M. Back, who died in 2007. It looks like the lenses that he made as TMB Optical got some traction in the enthusiast community, but not really any major press coverage sufficient to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Not opposed to merging/redirecting, but I don't see much to merge and don't know where it would redirect to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:09, 27 May 2016 (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.