Talk:Milbert Amplifiers

message: P3 is NOT a form of phantom power, and it is unlikely that the patent would survive a legal challenge, as in fact there is nothing new at all in it. (That goes for a vast number of patents, especially in the US, because the patent system is broken, but that debate is best handled somewhere else, just suffice it to say that many bogus patents have been granted, and usually survive unless someone puts up a lot of money to mount a legal challenge. IANAL, so I can't be quiate sure about this, or any other patent, but my engineering instinct says that this as an exceedingly trivial "invention", and in patent legalese "obvious to anyone skilled in the art". It is also very unlikely to be new and original.) I rather suspect that the information has been added by someone with a vested interest, considering that there is a direct hyperlink to the Milbert web site. 
I suggest that, in the interests of fairness, we have some sensible discussion here, before doing anything too drastic about it. I would like to get rid of the hyperlink, and de-emphasise the alleged patent, without seeking to remove reference to the product itself. But let us stick to the technical aspects and the way in which we expect Wikipedia to work. I really want to see what other seasoned Wikipedians think before doing anything here. There is nothing "wrong" with the technology, just the way in which it is depicted here at present, and Milbert are only doing what other businesses do, so we should not do anything which discredits them. But, as it stands, I feel that it is not quite within the spirit of Wikipedia to leave it as is.
Tiger99 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  P3 Technology 

message: In the past month (Aug 2015), the entry for the David Berning Company, one of the oldest American audio manufacturers, has been completely eradicated from wikipedia, a victim of "speedy deletion", without warning or discussion.  The Milbert Amplifiers entry survived an earlier attempted deletion in 2006, and the latest attempted deletion (Aug 2015) corresponds with an attempt to also remove the entry for Conrad-Johnson, another decades-old American audio manufacturing company.  One was unlucky.  Two was coincidence.  Three is pattern.  Has anyone else been targeted?  -- Michael Milbert -- mike@milbert.com -- TubeGod (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a patently ridiculous claim! You removed most of the article in an attempt to salvage it after it was pointed out that the content was completely inappropriate. Company owners shouldn't be profiling their own businesses on Wikipedia at such a great length. Time to step back and let some neutral, non-involved editors to work on it instead? Sionk (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: That's not a "claim", it's a fact. TubeGod (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: We welcome the editing. But all that's ever been proposed is deletion. We wouldn't care much, except that google ranks this wikipedia thing very highly. TubeGod (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against the effort to delete long-standing but "non-notable" small American manufacturer entries from Wikipedia