Talk:Lanix

message: A substantial amount of info. on this Lanix page is currently cited but not supported by those citations. Specifically, the 3D TV section. This material need to be removed, as no mention of Lanix is made in the citations supporting it. Fleetham (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material unsupported by given citations 

message: Most of the content on this page is uncited. I am challenging such content as untrue and contentious. Fleetham (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lanix has a wide product line that includes many items found in households throughout the world." Yes, this is as contentious as a BLP violation. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Nah, anyway, you have reverted many many times, so I recommend you to calm down. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if any of this is germane. I want to remove uncited material. Any objections? Fleetham (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe me because I don't know I am working in it? Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of uncited material 

message: I would like to resolve the issue that caused the page to be protected. Does anyone object to me challenging and removing uncited material? Fleetham (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war/content dispute 

message: I am hoping a consensus can be reached in regards to the uncited material. If it is uncited, I believe it should be removed. Any objections? Fleetham (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you object to removal of uncited material? Fleetham (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give me specific examples first 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to remove all uncited material. Fleetham (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Post what you are specifically planning to delete or i will not assume that you are doing this in good faith. You have a history of overzealously deleteing cited things when you say that you will only delete uncited information. Post the specific things you wish to delete. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All uncited material. I don't need to post it, as you can see it by viewing the Lanix page. Fleetham (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well unless you post exactly what text you wish to remove i can neither agree nor disagree as you seem to have ulterior motives and have done this type of thing in the past. That is, saying you are only going to remove "uncited materials" then you delete most of the page, including reliable ciations. Once again, i cannot agree or disagree until you submit to this page which text you specifically wish to remove. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Can you please try to be nicer? and 2. I'll just add  tags after the lock expires, ok? Is that acceptable. or do you wish to perform more character assassination? Fleetham (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  content dispute: uncited content 

message: this page is used as a citation. I believe it fails WP:reliable sources. Does anyone object to it be removed per WP:reliable sources? Fleetham (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The site fails WP:Reliable sources. Fleetham (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we finished here or are there more objections? Fleetham (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  content dispute: unreliable source 

message: this page is used as a citation. I believe it fails WP:reliable sources. Does anyone object to it be removed per WP:reliable sources? Fleetham (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Reliable sources says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." laybystore.com.au has neither a reputation for fact-checking nor accuracy. Fleetham (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we finished here or are there more objections? Fleetham (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  content dispute: unreliable source  

message: this video is cited as a source, but it fails WP:BLOGS. Any objections to it being removed per wp:blogs? Fleetham (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute: blogs 

message: An IP has reverted my edit removing citations that I believe fail WP:BLOGS. The cited website appears to be a blog, and I don't know how an agreement on this issue can be reached. I propose removing the citations, as they fail WP:BLOGS. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When did this happen? Let's just remove them until a consensus can be reached, ok? Fleetham (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I earlier gave all the evidence in a section above, that SPK.LA was a credible source. You were the only one who had a problem with it. Other editors reverted your removal of the SPK.LA citations too. Which therefore shows that the other editors don't agree with you either. There is no reason to remove them. I have gone over this before. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do appreciate you responding. And there's not much in the way of information on Lanix, so SPK citations are better than no citations at all. Do you mind if I remove all the uncited info though? Especially the PS3 stuff? It could be true, but it shouldn't be on the page without a reliable citation. Fleetham (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the PS3 citatation can be removed until we can get a better one. I'm going to call the Sony factory in Baja California where they're built and see if they can direct me to a written source. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about the citations I mean the material. The page shouldn't say "Lanix makes PS3s" when there's no reliable source. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've waited a while for a response. I haven't gotten any feedback, so I removed some stuff that is important enough to warrant citations if it is, in fact, true. I also removed some ad-like stuff and things that seemed like speculation to me. Let me know what you think. Fleetham (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog citations 

message: I'm not sure this article passes WP:Notability. The only reliable, third-party source is a Spanish-lang. article about the company's providing computers to Mexican schools. I've looked for other sources, and they're hard to find if not non-existent. I have to conclude the article fails the "significant coverage" criterion of the WP:Notability's general notability guidelines. Fleetham (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go, reviews and mentions in PC World, Compuguía, Infochannel and Ayacnet. Is that enough for you? --Odiseo79 (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's kind of a mixed bag. The Infochannel and Ayacnet are the kind of sources I'm looking for. PC World and Compuguía don't help at all because they don't talk about Lanix, as WP:Notability says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". Would it be possible to provide more sources like the first two I mentioned? Doing that would go far towards establishing the company's notability. Fleetham (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here we go again. Check please here, here, here and here. Can we please move on?. It is a well stablished mexican computer manufacturer and it's covered by the major press in Mexico. Now if you have a personal issue with that, that's another story. --Odiseo79 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding more. While I'm not sure that those links which are simply reviews of Lanix products help determine notability (notability is different than existence; we know Lanix exists, but simply being a Mexican maker of computers and mobiles isn't necessarily notable per the definition of that word at WP:Notability.), I think a good way to determine notability would be finding citations that support some of the uncited claims the page makes. For example, someone added "Lanix has seen sustained growth since 2005", and that Lanix has the 3rd or 4th largest market share in Latin America's consumer electronics sector. If you could find sources that support such assertions, those would really help determine notability. As WP:Notability says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail...", and so reviews of Lanix products or a single mention in passing really can't be considered "significant coverage". Do you understand? I don't want to be rude because you've gone to all that trouble, but proof of existence doesn't automatically mean a topic deserves an article. Fleetham (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fails [[WP:Notability]]? 

message: This page should not be speedy deleted because... --186.30.193.145 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This page should not be speedy deleted because... --186.30.193.145 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: ;Uncited claims inflate the company's importance:
:::*Please note that from the company's front page, it appears to assemble PCs. This official source only lists (more than halfway down the page, under "Important figures") "PCs, laptops and servers" under "equipment sold in 2005". And I doubt a company with less than 500 employees (same official source) has the wherewithal to purchase LED, LCD, and OLED display-making equipment, etc.
;Much of the information is not supported by given source:
 
::*The source, this youtube video, seems to be shot at the 2009 Intel Solutions Summit. It shows (1:30) an award that says "Lanix" and "Mobile Solution", but does not explain why the award was presented to the company. The Lanix spokeperson says they made a "mobile computer". Intel provides these awards to its "channel partners".
::*Lanix appears to assemble computers and make mobile phones. It's more an HP than a Foxconn. Machine translation of a Lanix source says "1990: Lanix began operations in Hermosillo, Sonora, with 20 employees. That year in Mexico launched its first product, PC Lanix 286..."
::*The source provided is the company's front page (http://www.lanix.cl/). It does not support the claim.
::*A company source says, "With a long history and extensive experience in the public sector, Lanix has become one of the most significant technology brands in support of various government projects related to technology" 
;The sources fail WP:Sources:
::1/14th of the provided sources seem to pass WP:SOURCES. (It's the one at the very bottom.) The others are either official Lanix websites or self-published sources.
;Tablet PC section:
::There is a relatively large section, supported by self-published sources, about tablet PCs that makes the reader think Lanix sells such products. There is a similar sentence in the Smartphone section about android phones. From its product page, the company does not appear to sell a tablet computer (or an android phone, see the Lanix mobile product page) but may have shown one at a tradeshow. 
;Conclusion:
The errors and misrepresentations are enough to give the average reader an impression of Lanix that is not borne out after further research. Good citations are hard to find, and those that exist are in Spanish. The page needs, at least, substantial pruning to prevent misrepresenting the company as a North American Foxconn or Elcoteq. Lanix may aspire to be an EMS company; it does have a mobile phone division, and many electronics (including flat-panel displays) are manufactured in Mexico. But the evidence we do have makes it appear that the company's main business is the assembly of PCs. Why I believe the page needs changes is because I doubt the average reader would come away from the page with that impression. If I am wrong, and Lanix is a fully fledged EMS company, the burden of proof is on those who want to represent the company as such. Fleetham (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree with Fleetham that those claims are not well sourced. What we know with the sources privided is that Lanix is a mexican PC Assembler with a mobile phone division and nothing more. I think the claim that they manufacture LED's, OLED's, DRAM and SDRAM need better sources. Fleetham, most of the sources will be in spanish, since it's a mexican company with a chilean subdivision; that should not be a problem. The claims that they sell tablet PC's and Android phones are very dubious too. We need better sources to sustain those claims. What we do know is that Lanix is the main computer assembler in Mexico and that by itself makes it notable. I hope we can reach a consensus starting from here, and please Fleetham, try not to add controversial tags as the speedy deletion one without talking with us first. I promise not to commit any changes until consensus has been reached. --Odiseo79 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a closer reading of WP:Notability if you believe being a Mexican assembler of PCs, even the sole domestic assembler of PCs, asserts notability. Can we come to a consensus that uncited and poorly cited claims need to be removed? Or is this controversial? Fleetham (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read WP:Notability several times and I have shown you a lot of sources that prove Lanix receives a wide coverage by the media in Mexico. I have no problem with provide you more: see here, here, here and here. The notability, I insist is well established. And no, I don't think removing uncited or poorly cited claims be controversial. What do you think if we add a "refimprove" tag in top of those sections and we give those editors time to sustain those claims before remove them?. --Odiseo79 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's try that. Would a few weeks be a long enough time to wait? And yes, it's sources that determine notability. I commented because I thought you meant being the sole domestic assembler of PCs was what asserted the article's notability. Fleetham (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. A couple of weeks should be enough time for them to provide more, reliable sources.  In the meantime, why don't you tag the sections that contain those claims?. I will back you up if they challenge the tagging. --Odiseo79 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, just to confirm, you have no problem removing the sections that are uncited and poorly cited, i.e, blog citations, after we tag and wait? Is there any part of the controversial material that I first mentioned that you feel should be kept even if we can't find a reliable citation to support it? Fleetham (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't have any problem with that and indeed I think it's needed. I feel this should be the version if they don't provide the sources we are asking for (of course without the notability tag). What do you think?.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiseo79 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's time to remove those claims that come from only one source and that don't appear even in the own company's homepage. What do you think? --Odiseo79 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been, like, 10 days, so sure I guess. I don't think anyone will be adding citations. Fleetham (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the version you proposed includes all current, reliable citations that are on the page. Perhaps we should make a new version to replace the current page with? If we do, I think this source should be included, as it says what Lanix is--"a world-class PC, notebook and server manufacturer". Fleetham (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed the page because I didn't get a response on my above idea. Fleetham (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay. I like this version. It's clean and contains only what the sources available say. Altough I think the picture of the mobile phone wouldn't do no harm. --Odiseo79 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the page spam?

message: Ok, there is only one source that says so. Nowhere in the Lanix' homepage says they manufacture android smartphones. So that itself makes the claim very dubious. We need at least a couple of extra sources. What do you think? --Odiseo79 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I guess that Facebook page was from "Lanix themselves". My mistake. Fleetham (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fleetham. If they themselves don't mention the OS in their own homepage and it's so difficult to find sources that mention the android OS in Lanix' smartphones it is perhaps because they don't offer it. So I think this information is speculative to say the least, and of course it's not encyclopedic. Unless of course we can find more sources. --Odiseo79 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the SPK.LA citation though? Which i've explained before is not a blog and even if you want to claim it is, it still passes the certifiability claim as it's writers are the same writers in the identical Sputnik Magazine publication of which SPK.LA is simply the online version of. 69.235.205.98 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, if the writers of the website also write for the magazine, the website is an acceptable source. Fleetham (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So we can mention that they sell one model of android smartphone?. It's ok with both of you? --Odiseo79 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, fine with me. Sorry for not checking back before editing. 69.235.205.98 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: If you would like to add content supported by reliable citations, please do so. Please don't revert the page to an earlier version. Fleetham (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: There's a problem with some of the claims you've made, like these:
- That Lanix "makes  televisions, semiconductors, DRAM, SDRAM, flash memory systems, hard disk drives,  DVD and Blu-ray Disc drives, and wireless routing systems." no where in your sources or in Lanix' homepage says so.
- That Lanix makes "the Lanix Titan Magnum Extreme, the most powerful production Windows desktop in the world". Your source indeed says that is a powerful desktop, but NOT the most powerful production desktop in the world-
- That "Lanix is one of only Two Mexican electronics companies make Android the others being Zonda Telecom and Kyoto Electronics". Your source only says that Kyoto electronics manufactures android phones, but not Lanix. You need sources pal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiseo79 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finding citations. You're so helpful! Fleetham (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the recente edits Fleetham, I was just gonna point out those unsourced claims. --Odiseo79 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Lanix manufacture android phones? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Lanix KIP.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: It's not clear from the reverts and from the aged discussion above which points are in active dispute.  Is it just the "largest domestic manufacturer" claim or are there other, non-trivial problems?  Can one of you make a list of the disputed text to start? Kuru (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that Lanix's first product was the "first personal computer made in large numbers by a domestic [Mexican] firm that saw widespread [domestic] sales" is not only uncited–it's possibly untrue. The early history of Lanix is unfathomable. Fleetham (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find a source for that in any of the commercial or industry databases I have access to.  I also could not find it on the corporate site, but for a contested industry claim, I would need a third party reference.  I'll reach out to the other editors who have not responded here yet. Kuru (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The early history of the company is not at all unfathomable. Here is a link to the Lanix official website  which has a detailed history of the company. I have attempted to post this but Fleetham kept removing it. Fleetham edited the page so it says Lanix didn't develop this until 1995 while they developed it way back in 1990. I don't understand why you did that? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  Additionally the Lanix article text used to be an almost a total copy of it's business report from Allbusiness which can be seen here , which also claims that it is Mexico's largest computer manufacturer. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not see support for "first personal computer made in large numbers by a domestic [Mexican] firm that saw widespread [domestic] sales" at the AllBusiness link or the corporate site link you gave.  Could you point to the specific line that supports this claim?  You seem to be contesting two other claims - let's sort them out one by one.  Do you have any sources for the "first personal computer" claim? Kuru (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  No, I think that should be removed as there is no claim for that. It should state only that it is the first Lanix computer, as the first citation states not that it was the first major Mexican computer. I wasn't the one who added that it was the first computer made in Mexico75.80.58.122 (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, it seems we're all in agreement on that one.  I've started a section below to document consensus changes.  Let's move on.  The other change you allude to is the "It names itself Mexico's largest domestically owned computer manufacturer" vs. "It is Mexico's largest domestically owned computer manufacturer".  The "it names itself" or "it claims" is correct with the cite given, since this is a primary source.  The AllBusiness link, however, provides a more definitive statement.  Fleetham, do you have any problems with that source? Kuru (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has Fleetham left you any messages regarding this? I'd really like to resolve this and improve the page ASAP 75.80.58.122 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lanix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110831085458/http://www.lanix.com/portal/pages1.aspx?page=63 to http://www.lanix.com/portal/pages1.aspx?page=63
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Lanix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320145841/http://www.lanix.com/Portal/pageselements.aspx?page=24&idElement=26 to http://www.lanix.com/Portal/pageselements.aspx?page=24&idElement=26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414120022/http://www.lanix.com/configurador/ to http://www.lanix.com/configurador/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109013230/http://www.lanix.com/portal/productos/Productos.aspx?Class=1&IdFormato=3&Tipo=1 to http://www.lanix.com/portal/productos/Productos.aspx?Class=1&IdFormato=3&Tipo=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320145940/http://www.lanix.com/portal/productos/Productos.aspx?Class=3&IdFormato=9&Tipo=2 to http://www.lanix.com/portal/productos/Productos.aspx?Class=3&IdFormato=9&Tipo=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115160855/http://www.spk.la/2010/10/detalles-de-la-tablet-de-lanix-la-w10/ to http://www.spk.la/2010/10/detalles-de-la-tablet-de-lanix-la-w10/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320145927/http://www.lanix.com/portal/productos/Productos.aspx?Class=3&IdFormato=9&Tipo=4 to http://www.lanix.com/portal/productos/Productos.aspx?Class=3&IdFormato=9&Tipo=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909183920/http://www.spk.la/2010/09/una-tablet-y-un-smarphone-las-dos-sorpresas-que-tiene-lanix-para-esta-navidad/ to http://www.spk.la/2010/09/una-tablet-y-un-smarphone-las-dos-sorpresas-que-tiene-lanix-para-esta-navidad/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115160855/http://www.spk.la/2010/10/detalles-de-la-tablet-de-lanix-la-w10/ to http://www.spk.la/2010/10/detalles-de-la-tablet-de-lanix-la-w10/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lanix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110620193248/http://www.lanix.com/portal/pages1.aspx?page=36 to http://www.lanix.com/portal/pages1.aspx?page=36
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion