Talk:Pax Labs - Knowledge (XXG)

482: 1294:. If you support a merge you can be friendly and constructive as the other editors above you did. Instead you open by accusing me of advertising and being a shill. I certain don't appreciated being called a "shill". If you review my history you can see I've written articles in a wide range of subjects. The goal of an encyclopedia is to writing from a neutral point of view which allows reader to understand the subject in question, which I believe this article has. These sources allow this device to pass our GNG. This is a policy based reason for the separation of this article, and my argument founded in our guidelines. This is how people who are 912:: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there)." What is the benefit of having a stub on another page when all the content can be in one place? The readability has been greatly improved with the merge. 1942:

like smoking leaf tobacco than other e-cigarettes. And we had an additional sentence saying they have received a US patent for the salts mix, which is labored prose. So I rolled the "patented" into the same sentence and used "emulated" to shorten and to avoid overly close paraphrase. We are allowed to combine sentences, especially if one citation covers two statements. The article is painfully "He says ..." "They say ..." and choppy.

1904:

slapped on my talk page, I hereby bring your attention to the fact I have again edited the article adding a new reference with an easy to remember and type name and integrating material previously presented in a hurky-jerky fashion. If I have thereby sinned against the prevailing orthodoxy in articles on the topic of e-cigarettes and their manufacturers, here is a waving flag so that my errors may be stamped out more rapidly.

167: 399: 1122:. I've not misjudged what your doing here: you're defending having two articles when it's obvious that there's barely enough encyclopedic material for one. What your reasons for that mistake are, is something for you to ponder. Don't bother trying to threaten me, because you're obviously nowhere near as qualified as I. The requirements for a stand-alone article are three-fold: (1) it satisfies 333: 33: 82: 64: 514: 700:. He also made a personal attack in his opening rationale using the phrase "shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner" and then refused to apologize as a sign of good faith. He also refused to discuss this further and warned me for posting on his talk page. All these are sign of bad faith editing and should be avoided. 347: 319: 439: 92: 899:

rather more circumspect... but it seems that they are rather innovative (again within their field), and have produced products that stick out from their competitors. And they have received rather substantial coverage as well. Thus the argument should be for more prose/content - not whether it is substantially enough coverage to have independent articles. --

1016:, I'm always sadden to see lack of research before coming to make a decision. I am requested this merge go to AfD where I am confident I will survive, I wrote this article in 2015, I haven't updated it since, after all Knowledge (XXG) is a collaborative effort, unfortunately this did not happen. Since 2017 there have been over 60 1903:

Since my last editing of this article, among other things reducing what I consider ridiculously lengthy quotation of statements by company spokesmen that add no factual information, and naming references in an easy to remember and type manner, were reverted and a caution about discretionary sanctions

1219:

If you spend any more time trying to defend this advert masquerading as an article, you'll find more than just me comparing you to a shill, whether you are paid or not. As far as I'm concerned, this is a voluntary project and I'm not a professional editor - are you trying to tell me that you are? You

1941:

Yes. The Business Examiner/SF Chronicle ref says both that the mix with salts is patented and that the company claims it produces something more like leaf tobacco (I paraphrased as "emulates"). The other source cited there (TechCrunch?) says the company says the addition of the salts makes it more

817: 756:

merge for another brand from the same company. Notability does not guarantee a stand alone article. Two (or even three) small paragraphs is not enough content for a separate article. They have received some mainstream attention, but it is not enough for a separate article, especially when one can

1410:

attack. How dare you suggest that others are not here to build an encyclopedia, when you've demonstrated that your only debating tactic is to attack other editors? My attitude toward you is no more than a pale reflection of your appalling attitude to the other editors discussing here. So you can

898:

the only real issue with regards to whether an article can/should be created. In this particular case, there is significant coverage of the product, which is a rather unique product within its area/range, thus arguing for an article specifically about the product (Juul). The case for PAX Labs is

1993:

on its own, as it accounts for half of the e-cigarette market in the United States, is a major cultural phenomenon among young adults and students, and has attracted regulatory attention from the FDA and others. Some of the content concerning JUUL pre-2017 could be left in this article, so both

1787:

Outside comment: The CNBC article seems to focus, after the finance, on the execudrama of Pax vs Juul. If they are still that inseparable in the industry-savvy-media's eye, and their individual work isn't so different or separable as to make more than a stub or independent material each, you're

1199:

This is a personal attack I took the high road and was civil toward, you I said I am equally qualified as you, which is not an insult, and to be more professional in your tone with established editors. The truth is I am FAR more qualified than you. I've been here for ten years and made over 200

1228:- If the article is merged, you're going to take it to AfD? Good luck with that, you'll have my support for deletion. And you really want me to apologise for pointing out how your arguments here appear? I don't know which is funnier. Almost as funny as you thinking you decide where I can edit: 1100:

Your second statement needs explaining: Are you suggesting that I work for the company and that I am here in bad faith? I've had over ten years experience so if you really want to go down this path, promise you ANI. I recommend you review my history and my work at DRV. Perhaps you misjudged.

1234:

Well here I am, participating in the discussion. What are you going to do about it? I promise you, I'll still be defending this project from articles like this long after you've given up and gone. Now stop being rude to your elders and betters – didn't your mom teach you any manners?

2052:

A lot of the same players from Pax Labs are now at JUUL. The products are generally the same. After they are sold to one of the Big Tobacco companies then we can talk about a split or a RfC can be opened. We can't ignore the others who participated in the previous discussions.

1961:...". Stating it "emulates" is a very different claim. Also stating it is "nicotine with salts" is misleading. It is not nicotine with other salts. It is nicotine salts that are found in tobacco leaves. They have a formula to make the nicotine salt that was patented in 2015. 828:

The key issue is not notability, although the quality of the sources makes that debatable. The actual issue is that the sources seem to be able to support about two to three paragraphs of content. So why would two tiny articles be better than a single, slightly larger one?

1956:

Then you would have no problem verifying "On June 1, 2015,...". Right? It also decreases readable by adding additional sources. Combining different sources to come to a conclusion not found in both sources can be confusing. The current source used to verify the claim says

1763:

See "Earlier this year, Juul Labs quietly spun out of vaping company Pax Labs and quickly catapulted up the charts to become the top e-cigarette producer on the market. Now, the San Francisco-based company is raising $ 150 million in its first financing as an independent

1064:

By your statements claims all products written by an established user is advertising. This product has received significant attention and is widely used enough that people would be interested in reading about it in an encyclopedia. I've provided third party sources.

1117:

I couldn't care less who you work for and only you know whether you edit in bad faith or not. It's remarkable that an editor with over ten years experience knows so little of the requirements for a stand-alone article, but feel free to try ANI, just don't forget

1028:, the former is scientific study There isn't a snowball's chance in hell this would be deleted Just to speed things up I would recommend AfD. Or maybe if we decide to work with together, we can expand this article and drop the merge discussion all together. 1045:

And I'm always saddened to see a shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner. If you want to take this AfD, feel free to do so. The content and sources here cover essentially just the same as those at

1101:

Regardless am I not an editor you want to be making such accusations against I am as equally qualified as you. I believe this product passes our GN guidelines which is why I favor keeping not because of your ridiculously "advertising" accusation.

1130:; (3) it has the consensus of editors that it should be a stand-alone article, rather than a part of a larger article. I heard you the first time you said you believed it meets GNG. But it doesn't. You have still to address WP:NOT, in particular 1705:(Invited by the bot) My knowledge here is superficial, but if it's a separate company and it appears large / prominent, I think that wp:notability is highly likely. Also, covering two different companies in one article seems like a bad idea. 1385:""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" 1256:

How we operate here, is an editor looks at sources such as the sources I provided in the article and the further sources I provided in this discussion. Then we determine if they pass our fundamental GNG principles. These guidelines requires

880:. Now, what is your reason that the content of Juul should be a stand-alone article, rather than being covered in PAX Labs? The two topics are inextricably linked and a single article will easily cover everything found so far in sources. -- 2071:

I've bold split there doesn't seem to be any controversy here if anyone who participated in the prior discussion disagree's in light for the new circumstances I can open an AfD or RfC for split, I find AfD to be a quicker method.

713:

The usual attempt to smear anybody who disagrees with your agenda of promoting this product. I've seen it more times than you've had hot dinners, and I don't suppose this will be last time. Now address the issues and quit the

1681:. There is not enough reliable sources for a separate article. The result would be to delete the JUUL content if not kept on this page. It is a worse idea to delete the JUUL content. It would not survive an AFD nomination. 780:— This really isn't notable. It fails general notability criteria. That a brand has a strong following online or a strong group that intentionally creates lots of Knowledge (XXG) articles is no reason to keep the article. 1289:

each giving this specific electronic cigarette significant coverage. I've been here for a long time and written many articles, none of which have been deleted or merged. You are entitled to your opinion assuming you are

1411:

forget trying to patronise me any further. Here's my final tip for you: when you ping an editor, you have to sign that edit, otherwise there's no notification. Now there's something else you've learned today. --

1298:

engage. Your attitude doesn't match your age, you don't acted like an elder, so its hard to treat you as one. Its never too late to learn regardless of you're age and I hope you've learned something here.

185: 288: 576:

I am going to do a quick close here, as I am the primary proponent against merge, I believe due to the length of the article a merge is fine, I assume no objections, if there are feel free to revert.

2133: 1359:

makes a decent attempt at journalism by actually interviewing Pax's director of communications, but that's just one semi-decent source among a collection of dross. I'm sure that the definition of a

2096: 1467:

Take it to AfD and I'll show you you're lack of research I'm not going to make the Cunard style post here. It is a lot of work I'll save it for the AfD which will be opened if this is ever merged.

1851:

There is currently not enough content for two separate articles. About half of the references in the article are about JUUL. There is potential for both articles to be deleted if they were split.

2158: 1583:. Those three sources are about the cigarette not the company. This is multiple reliable third party sources, which is why AfD is preferred here so the information in the sources can be listed. 1220:

have no qualifications to pontificate. If you want a pissing content: I've twice your edits; written featured content; created highly used templates and modules; and – unlike you – I understand

1200:

articles compared to your 24. Merge discussions and can always be overriden in AfD. I said nothing against you yet instead of apologizing you attack me. This is a clear indication of being

358:. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the 2153: 874:"creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" 498: 1314:

Good. You're starting to discuss the issues, instead of blithely claiming that the subject is notable. What you describe is how we start in determining whether an article passes

1792:

due to first-adopter and name both in lede sentence). Note of course if a corporate scandal were to impact either of the companies it would be proper to separate the pages.

805:

I see several independent articles on both PAX Labs and Juul. Both seem to be notable. I think people are mistaking lacking prose in the articles with notability. The Wired

1344:

gives the game away: "The company earlier this month broke a campaign for the new product ..." They did nothing more than pick up on PAX's ad campaign to launch Juul. The

1989:

Re-opening the discussion about splitting the article to give JUUL its own article. JUUL was spun off into its own company (JUUL Labs, Inc.) in 2017. JUUL is definitely

1438:

Hum. The more I look at this the greater my concerns. You mention "New York Legal Examiner" as a major source. The content is own by Claris Marketing per at the bottom.

1367:, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So tell me, where do I find evidence of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of: (1) 359: 354: 324: 2143: 1021: 144: 2123: 138: 757:

include it here for an improved reader experience. Don't send readers to read another article when they can alternatively reader all about it in one place.

224: 211: 2095:

so who owns the Ploom site & the product it produces? I see their product is not for sale in the US but has the Ploom logo I see on my OG Pax.

2128: 1231:"Do not participate in articles I am involved in. Also do not proceed further in the current discussion and we well have no issues going forward." 542: 947:

A notable ecigs with mutliple independent sources documenting it. PAX Labs make other products as well. This has received significiant coverage.

114: 1511: 812: 218: 473: 1809: 2118: 198: 2100: 1826: 1765: 1637: 1398:

Now, after the lesson, I'll address your other points. You're the one who started commenting on editors, instead of content, with your

1379:? Ignoring all your blether about NPOV (which has no bearing on notability), the next point can be found in the last bullet point of 105: 69: 2148: 2138: 383: 1395:. There is neither enough content or reliable sourcing to make a separate article a better option than merging Juul into PAX labs. 1579:. Each of these sources gives the subject significant coverage. There is also trivial mentions in sources regarding e-cig health 1183:

And I'm always saddened to see a shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner.

1050:. There's really no encyclopedic value in providing two lots of free advertising for an unremarkable company and its products. -- 467: 1364: 463: 1547: 1453: 1406:"? Where do you get off casting aspersions on your fellow editors? I don't se any sign of you offering them apologies for your 1330:; and the weak sources actually in the article are nothing more than thinly disguised reprints of press releases from PAX. The 979: 616: 192: 179: 44: 1822: 1338: 417: 279: 205: 1894:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1518:, are you telling me these sources don't cut the muster? It proves the devices is notable enough for standalone coverage. 1185: 1179: 815: 459: 966:

With respect to significant coverage I would be looking for major mainstream press with more than just passing mention.

1360: 1551: 1457: 1388: 1135: 1068:

It's not received significant mention in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It fails GNG. It fails

983: 620: 553: 1131: 1958: 1576: 900: 864: 820: 1824: 1204:. You have disqualified yourself from this article discussion. I see you are in your 60s, please act your age.. 1600:, especially without any critical content. We don't need another stub for another brand from the same company. 909: 231: 50: 1727: 1221: 877: 32: 1841: 251: 1119: 332: 1947: 1909: 1493: 641: 113:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1990: 1580: 1507: 1201: 2060: 2016: 1999: 1968: 1930: 1879: 1858: 1797: 1773: 1737: 1712: 1688: 1665: 1647: 1609: 1543: 1449: 975: 921: 894:

Except that it is. There might be issues outside of notability that have influence. But notability

766: 612: 1503: 545:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

2041:

I think given the new circumstances a bold split is warranted, its not the same company anymore.

1669: 1572: 1532: 1515: 1345: 809: 486: 411: 1351:

looks more like a genuine piece of reporting, but slips up by showing exactly the same graph as

1828: 1754: 658: 1818: 1295: 1069: 863:. (for both PAX Labs (Business insider ..), and the Juul (Wired,Chicago Tribune, Engadget) -- 389: 244: 1943: 1905: 1489: 995: 637: 237: 97: 1913: 1380: 1331: 1315: 1127: 1123: 860: 1416: 1240: 1147: 1077: 1055: 885: 834: 723: 679: 268: 2009:

After a long discussion there was a merge. I recommend starting a RfC to undo the merge.

1872:

RfC withdrawn at this time. Not enough people commented after reopening the discussion.

2054: 2036: 2029: 2010: 1995: 1962: 1924: 1873: 1852: 1793: 1767: 1731: 1682: 1641: 1601: 1562: 1535: 1441: 1011: 967: 913: 787: 758: 604: 166: 856: 2112: 1134:, which it fails. And on top of all that, the consensus forming here is to merge the 407: 1337:

reads exactly like a press-release and is completely uncritical of the subject. The

1750: 1072:. It fails to have consensus of editors to be separated from its parent article. -- 1003: 654: 594:

This article is not notable enough to be stand alone. Thus I propose merging here.

692:

Editor appears to have COI issues and has made multiple improper warnings as seen

2073: 2042: 1584: 1519: 1468: 1300: 1205: 1102: 1029: 948: 733: 701: 577: 1568: 806: 1412: 1251: 1236: 1162: 1143: 1095: 1073: 1051: 881: 830: 814:

articles are specifically about the Juul vaporizer, while the Business Insider

719: 675: 398: 87: 1400:"I'm always sadden to see lack of research before coming to make a decision." 653:

not sufficiently notable for its own article. Needs more mainstream mention.

17: 781: 1392: 1139: 1047: 1025: 1020:

sources giving this device significant coverage. There are these sources

671: 530: 1640:. Should Juul be unmerged or should it remain in the Pax Labs article? 110: 81: 63: 1817:- JUUL is a standalone company (we have a reference), and it survives 490: 346: 318: 186:

Knowledge (XXG):Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies

1439: 2104: 2078: 2066: 2047: 2022: 2003: 1974: 1951: 1936: 1885: 1864: 1846: 1801: 1779: 1758: 1743: 1716: 1694: 1673: 1653: 1615: 1591: 1555: 1526: 1497: 1475: 1461: 1420: 1307: 1244: 1212: 1151: 1109: 1081: 1059: 1036: 987: 955: 927: 903: 889: 867: 838: 823: 790: 772: 740: 727: 708: 683: 662: 645: 624: 584: 1534:

so yes still not seeing enough to justify a seperate article.

1176: 508: 433: 392:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

388:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

26: 819:

articles seem to be about the company and its innovations. --

437: 397: 1363:

hasn't escaped you: "Articles should be based on reliable,

1923:. Do you think all three sources verify the same claim? 878:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability #General notability guideline

859:. And as far as i can tell we have all requirements for 1920: 1597: 1229: 697: 693: 538: 534: 525: 520: 2159:

Knowledge (XXG) requested photographs in San Francisco

1749:

Is Juul a subsidiary of PAX or an independent company?

1391:

is not only thin, but is already partly duplicated at

406:

This article was accepted on 29 June 2014 by reviewer

2134:

Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings

1226:

Merge discussions and can always be overriden in AfD

569:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

466:. Please replace this template with a more specific 109:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 143:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2154:Knowledge (XXG) requested images of organizations 368:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Articles for creation 732:Have you now? You must be a bad faith editor. 674:, each of which is barely notable, if that. -- 1788:better off with just a single article (title 572:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 1636:I am reopening the merge discussion because 1502:Here are the source everyone is looking for 670:This article just covers the same ground as 1318:. The problem is that you haven't provided 225:Category:Company articles needing infoboxes 212:Category:Company articles needing attention 512: 371:Template:WikiProject Articles for creation 352:This article was reviewed by member(s) of 313: 174:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 152: 58: 30: 1898: 1726:I'm not sure if a stand alone article is 1387:So there's my contention: the content at 489:may be able to locate suitable images on 1273:. Am I missing something? I've provided 519:Text and/or other creative content from 2097:2600:1700:7642:1730:DDF2:534C:6B5E:596B 315: 60: 1994:articles would be sufficiently large. 1399: 1384: 1230: 873: 1638:JUUL was spun out of Pax Labs in 2017 1167:You sent this in your opening message 250:Help expand stub articles located at 123:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Companies 7: 2144:AfC submissions by date/29 June 2014 563:The following discussion is closed. 199:Category:Unassessed company articles 103:This article is within the scope of 2124:Unknown-importance company articles 855:issue with regards to articles is: 49:It is of interest to the following 390:project-independent quality rating 25: 1202:not here to build an encyclopedia 487:Openverse Creative Commons Search 355:WikiProject Articles for creation 1890:The discussion above is closed. 1531:Those are more about the company 1126:; (2) it is not disqualified by 872:Actually, it isn't. Meeting GNG 345: 331: 317: 276:Tag company talk pages with the 165: 90: 80: 62: 31: 2129:WikiProject Companies articles 265:Tag company articles with the 126:Template:WikiProject Companies 1: 1899:I've edited the article again 1886:17:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 1865:16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC) 1847:05:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC) 1802:04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC) 1780:18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) 1759:15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC) 1717:17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC) 1695:18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) 1296:here to build an encyclopedia 117:and see a list of open tasks. 1744:01:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC) 1674:18:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC) 1654:01:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC) 1567:there are tons more sources 474:Wikipedians in San Francisco 156:WikiProject Companies To-do: 2119:Stub-Class company articles 2105:22:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 1389:Juul (electronic cigarette) 1136:Juul (electronic cigarette) 554:Juul (electronic cigarette) 526:Juul (electronic cigarette) 2175: 1664:Support. Agree with RexxS 145:project's importance scale 2079:11:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC) 2067:05:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC) 2048:04:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC) 2023:05:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 1975:21:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC) 1952:21:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC) 1937:20:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC) 1914:19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC) 529:was copied or moved into 405: 387: 340: 151: 142: 75: 57: 2149:Accepted AfC submissions 2139:Start-Class AfC articles 2004:16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1892:Please do not modify it. 1616:17:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 1598:page is an advertisement 1592:18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1556:15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1527:14:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1516:another business insider 1498:10:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1484:agree w/ Doc James, and 1476:03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1462:03:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1421:02:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1308:01:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1245:00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1213:00:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1152:22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 1110:21:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 1082:22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 1060:20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 1037:20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 988:17:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 956:15:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 928:16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC) 904:14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) 890:02:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 868:00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 839:00:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 824:19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 791:12:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 773:04:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 741:01:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 728:00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 709:00:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 684:20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 663:19:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 646:17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 625:15:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 585:21:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 566:Please do not modify it. 446:It is requested that an 1022:New York Legal Examiner 1486:keeping an eye on this 483:Free Image Search Tool 468:media request template 442: 402: 252:Category:Company stubs 39:This article is rated 1959:found in leaf tobacco 477:may be able to help! 441: 401: 365:Articles for creation 362:for more information. 325:Articles for creation 289:requests for comments 280:WikiProject Companies 106:WikiProject Companies 43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1259:significant coverage 537:. The former page's 493:and other web sites. 1722:Reopened discussion 811:and Chicago Tribune 543:provide attribution 464:improve its quality 462:in this article to 1596:It looks like the 1361:WP:reliable source 443: 403: 45:content assessment 1844: 1813: 1190: 1189: 1132:WP:NOTADVERTISING 876:- the wording of 549: 548: 507: 506: 494: 432: 431: 428: 427: 424: 423: 312: 311: 308: 307: 304: 303: 300: 299: 16:(Redirected from 2166: 2063: 2040: 2033: 2019: 1971: 1933: 1921:spotted an issue 1882: 1861: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1831: 1807: 1776: 1740: 1691: 1650: 1632:Merge or unmerge 1612: 1606: 1589: 1566: 1540: 1524: 1504:Business Insider 1473: 1446: 1404:lack of research 1324:Business Insider 1320:Fortune Magazine 1305: 1283:Business Insider 1279:Fortune Magazine 1255: 1210: 1177: 1166: 1107: 1099: 1034: 1015: 1007: 999: 972: 953: 924: 918: 789: 784: 769: 763: 738: 706: 609: 582: 568: 528: 516: 515: 509: 503: 501: 480: 470:where possible. 440: 434: 376: 375: 372: 369: 366: 349: 342: 341: 336: 335: 334: 329: 321: 314: 283: 272: 238:Portal:Companies 180:Article requests 169: 162: 161: 153: 131: 130: 129:company articles 127: 124: 121: 100: 98:Companies portal 95: 94: 93: 84: 77: 76: 66: 59: 42: 36: 35: 27: 21: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2109: 2108: 2093: 2061: 2034: 2027: 2017: 1987: 1969: 1931: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1880: 1859: 1837: 1832: 1829: 1810:Summoned by bot 1774: 1738: 1724: 1703: 1689: 1661: 1648: 1634: 1610: 1602: 1585: 1560: 1536: 1520: 1512:Chicago Tribune 1469: 1442: 1373:Advertising Age 1340:Advertising Age 1301: 1249: 1206: 1160: 1103: 1093: 1030: 1009: 1001: 993: 968: 964: 949: 922: 914: 901:Kim D. Petersen 865:Kim D. Petersen 821:Kim D. Petersen 799: 786: 782: 767: 759: 734: 702: 605: 600: 592: 578: 564: 557: 524: 513: 499: 497: 438: 373: 370: 367: 364: 363: 330: 327: 296: 293: 277: 266: 128: 125: 122: 119: 118: 96: 91: 89: 40: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2172: 2170: 2162: 2161: 2156: 2151: 2146: 2141: 2136: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2111: 2110: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1900: 1897: 1889: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1723: 1720: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1676: 1660: 1657: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1479: 1478: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1396: 1312: 1217: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1115: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1040: 1039: 963: 960: 959: 958: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 910:WP:MERGEREASON 844: 843: 842: 841: 798: 795: 794: 793: 775: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 687: 686: 665: 648: 627: 599: 596: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 559: 558: 556: 550: 547: 546: 541:now serves to 517: 505: 504: 495: 479: 444: 430: 429: 426: 425: 422: 421: 404: 394: 393: 386: 380: 379: 377: 350: 338: 337: 322: 310: 309: 306: 305: 302: 301: 298: 297: 295: 294: 292: 291: 285: 284:project banner 274: 262: 254: 240: 227: 214: 201: 188: 173: 171: 170: 158: 157: 149: 148: 141: 135: 134: 132: 115:the discussion 102: 101: 85: 73: 72: 67: 55: 54: 48: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2171: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2132: 2130: 2127: 2125: 2122: 2120: 2117: 2116: 2114: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2090: 2080: 2077: 2076: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2058: 2057: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2038: 2031: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2014: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1984: 1976: 1972: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1877: 1876: 1866: 1862: 1856: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1840: 1835: 1827: 1825: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1781: 1777: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1735: 1734: 1729: 1721: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1686: 1685: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1659:Support merge 1658: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1645: 1644: 1639: 1631: 1617: 1613: 1607: 1605: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1590: 1588: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1533: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1523: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1477: 1474: 1472: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1445: 1440: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1348: 1343: 1341: 1336: 1334: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1233: 1232: 1227: 1223: 1222:WP:Notability 1218: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1211: 1209: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1182: 1178: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1106: 1097: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1033: 1027: 1026:The Chronicle 1023: 1019: 1013: 1005: 997: 992: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 971: 961: 957: 954: 952: 946: 943: 942: 929: 925: 919: 917: 911: 907: 906: 905: 902: 897: 893: 892: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 870: 869: 866: 862: 858: 854: 851:Actually the 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 840: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 822: 818: 816: 813: 810: 807: 804: 801: 800: 796: 792: 788: 785: 779: 776: 774: 770: 764: 762: 755: 752: 751: 742: 739: 737: 731: 730: 729: 725: 721: 717: 712: 711: 710: 707: 705: 699: 695: 691: 690: 689: 688: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 666: 664: 660: 656: 652: 649: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 628: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 608: 602: 601: 597: 595: 586: 583: 581: 575: 574: 573: 570: 567: 561: 560: 555: 551: 544: 540: 536: 532: 527: 522: 518: 511: 510: 502: 496: 492: 488: 484: 478: 476: 475: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 436: 435: 419: 416: 413: 409: 400: 396: 395: 391: 385: 382: 381: 378: 361: 357: 356: 351: 348: 344: 343: 339: 326: 323: 320: 316: 290: 286: 281: 275: 270: 264: 263: 261: 259: 255: 253: 249: 247: 246: 241: 239: 236: 234: 233: 228: 226: 223: 221: 220: 215: 213: 210: 208: 207: 202: 200: 197: 195: 194: 189: 187: 184: 182: 181: 176: 175: 172: 168: 164: 163: 160: 159: 155: 154: 150: 146: 140: 137: 136: 133: 116: 112: 108: 107: 99: 88: 86: 83: 79: 78: 74: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 38: 34: 29: 28: 19: 18:Talk:PAX Labs 2094: 2074: 2055: 2043: 2011: 1988: 1963: 1925: 1902: 1891: 1874: 1871: 1853: 1834:Bellezzasolo 1833: 1815:Oppose merge 1814: 1789: 1786: 1768: 1732: 1725: 1707: 1706: 1704: 1701:Oppose merge 1683: 1678: 1642: 1635: 1603: 1586: 1537: 1521: 1485: 1470: 1443: 1437: 1407: 1403: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1356: 1352: 1346: 1339: 1332: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1302: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1225: 1207: 1120:WP:BOOMERANG 1104: 1092: 1031: 1017: 969: 965: 950: 944: 915: 895: 852: 802: 783:Carl Fredrik 777: 760: 753: 735: 715: 703: 667: 650: 633: 629: 606: 603:As proposer 593: 579: 571: 565: 562: 521:this version 472: 471: 455: 451: 447: 414: 374:AfC articles 360:project page 353: 271:|Companies}} 257: 256: 243: 242: 230: 229: 217: 216: 204: 203: 191: 190: 178: 177: 104: 51:WikiProjects 1944:Yngvadottir 1906:Yngvadottir 1490:Ozzie10aaaa 1365:third-party 1267:independent 1142:. Cheers -- 1018:independent 996:Ozzie10aaaa 716:ad hominems 638:Ozzie10aaaa 636:rationale-- 328:Start‑class 2113:Categories 1985:Split JUUL 1408:ad hominem 1369:TechCrunch 1353:TechCrunch 1333:TechCrunch 1138:stub into 962:Discussion 857:notability 808:, Engadget 452:photograph 41:Stub-class 2056:QuackGuru 2037:QuackGuru 2030:Chumash11 2012:QuackGuru 1996:Chumash11 1964:QuackGuru 1926:QuackGuru 1875:QuackGuru 1854:QuackGuru 1794:SamuelRiv 1769:QuackGuru 1764:company." 1733:QuackGuru 1708:North8000 1684:QuackGuru 1643:QuackGuru 1604:QuackGuru 1577:Co.Design 1563:Doc James 1538:Doc James 1444:Doc James 1357:The Verge 1275:The Verge 1012:Doc James 970:Doc James 916:QuackGuru 761:QuackGuru 634:proposers 607:Doc James 535:this edit 120:Companies 111:companies 70:Companies 1790:PAX Labs 1666:Cloudjpk 1573:Engadget 1548:contribs 1454:contribs 1393:PAX Labs 1377:engadget 1347:engadget 1265:sources 1263:reliable 1140:PAX Labs 1048:PAX Labs 980:contribs 672:PAX Labs 617:contribs 531:PAX Labs 460:included 456:Pax Labs 418:contribs 408:Timtrent 273:template 232:Maintain 206:Copyedit 1991:notable 1843:Discuss 1819:WP:NOTE 1751:StarHOG 1728:notable 1679:Support 1581:Fortune 1508:Fortune 1342:article 1292:neutral 1271:subject 1269:of the 1070:WP:PLUG 1004:Jim1138 778:Support 754:Support 668:support 655:Jim1138 651:support 630:support 598:Support 539:history 287:Answer 219:Infobox 2091:Ploom? 2075:Valoem 2044:Valoem 1587:Valoem 1575:, and 1522:Valoem 1514:, and 1471:Valoem 1381:WP:GNG 1375:; (3) 1371:; (2) 1316:WP:GNG 1303:Valoem 1261:from 1208:Valoem 1128:WP:NOT 1124:WP:GNG 1105:Valoem 1032:Valoem 1008:, and 951:Valoem 945:Oppose 861:WP:GNG 803:Oppose 797:Oppose 736:Valoem 704:Valoem 580:Valoem 552:Merge 500:Upload 491:Flickr 269:portal 193:Assess 47:scale. 1569:Wired 1552:email 1458:email 1413:RexxS 1349:op-ed 1335:piece 1328:WEIRD 1287:WEIRD 1252:RexxS 1237:RexxS 1163:RexxS 1144:RexxS 1096:RexxS 1074:RexxS 1052:RexxS 984:email 882:RexxS 831:RexxS 720:RexxS 676:RexxS 621:email 533:with 448:image 384:Start 258:Other 245:Stubs 2101:talk 2062:talk 2018:talk 2000:talk 1970:talk 1957:"... 1948:talk 1932:talk 1910:talk 1881:talk 1860:talk 1798:talk 1775:talk 1755:talk 1739:talk 1713:talk 1690:talk 1670:talk 1649:talk 1611:talk 1544:talk 1494:talk 1450:talk 1417:talk 1326:and 1285:and 1241:talk 1148:talk 1078:talk 1056:talk 976:talk 923:talk 908:See 886:talk 853:only 835:talk 768:talk 724:talk 698:here 696:and 694:here 680:talk 659:talk 642:talk 632:per 613:talk 481:The 412:talk 1402:A " 523:of 485:or 458:be 454:of 450:or 139:??? 2115:: 2103:) 2065:) 2021:) 2002:) 1973:) 1950:) 1935:) 1919:I 1912:) 1884:) 1863:) 1821:- 1800:) 1778:) 1757:) 1742:) 1730:. 1715:) 1693:) 1672:) 1652:) 1614:) 1571:, 1554:) 1550:· 1546:· 1510:, 1506:, 1496:) 1488:-- 1460:) 1456:· 1452:· 1419:) 1383:: 1355:. 1322:, 1281:, 1277:, 1243:) 1235:-- 1224:. 1186:” 1180:“ 1150:) 1080:) 1058:) 1024:, 1000:, 986:) 982:· 978:· 926:) 896:is 888:) 837:) 829:-- 771:) 726:) 718:-- 682:) 661:) 644:) 623:) 619:· 615:· 420:). 282:}} 278:{{ 267:{{ 2099:( 2059:( 2039:: 2035:@ 2032:: 2028:@ 2015:( 1998:( 1967:( 1946:( 1929:( 1908:( 1878:( 1857:( 1838:✡ 1830:∰ 1812:) 1808:( 1796:( 1772:( 1753:( 1736:( 1711:( 1687:( 1668:( 1646:( 1608:( 1565:: 1561:@ 1542:( 1492:( 1448:( 1415:( 1254:: 1250:@ 1239:( 1165:: 1161:@ 1146:( 1098:: 1094:@ 1076:( 1054:( 1014:: 1010:@ 1006:: 1002:@ 998:: 994:@ 974:( 920:( 884:( 833:( 765:( 722:( 678:( 657:( 640:( 611:( 415:· 410:( 260:: 248:: 235:: 222:: 209:: 196:: 183:: 147:. 53:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index