 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2010. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editHere are some sources to establish notability of the company.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/27/business/company-news-esc-medical-agrees-to-purchase-unit-of-coherent.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/09/business/company-news-palomar-to-sell-hair-removal-laser-unit-to-coherent.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/16/business/company-news-patent-rift-settled.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/18/business/company-news-coherent-agrees-to-laser-royalties.html
- Hoover's profile (recommended by WP:CORP): http://www.hoovers.com/company/Coherent_Inc/ryftif-1.html
- http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/08/04/story4.html
I'll come back to rewrite the article. Han-Kwang (t) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done, except for Hoovers since I'm not going to spend $119 on their analysis report. Han-Kwang (t) 13:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Error in cross reference
editArticle has hyperlink reference Eugene Watson. The link appears incorrect as the hyperlink to Eugene Watson states that he died in 1964 while article states he founded the company in 1966. - Patrickf88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.205.196 (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed draft
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi. My name is Jesse and I work for Coherent, Inc. The current page is mostly unsourced and has content like “a period of growth and innovation” or “talent that Coherent is globally recognized for.” Unfortunately, it looks as though someone affiliated with Coherent likely added a lot of promotional content.
In compliance with WP:COI, I would like to propose a rework of the page that has proper citations, more neutral content, etc. in hopes that an impartial editor will review the proposed draft and implement all or part of the draft they feel would improve the page. Jesse Ratner (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jesse Ratner: User:Jesse Ratner/draft looks well-written and neutral, and your recent shortening of it was an improvement. It would be nice if there were more mainstream coverage than the WSJ and NYT; while I can't view the WSJ coverage, the NYT coverage looks good. There are other NYT sources in the "Notability" section on this talk page above. I'd like someone else to review it and provide feedback, so I'll add an edit request tag to this talk page section.
- @DGG: You are experienced in examining COI contributions; would you mind giving that proposed draft a look? To me, it does look better than the current live article (which has puffery about the Couillaud Prize, not mentioned at all in the proposed draft but maybe something about it could be salvaged). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- anachronist, I think you have it right. A merge is possible. The current article in mainspace , which was started in 2006, was always promotional, and was in 2020 made even worse. It's good that the company moved to replace it. The current version is acceptable, but a merged one would be better because the prize is significant. (I normally don't bother much with prizes a company establishes in its own field, but this cosponsored with the Optical Society of America, the leading organization in the general subject field.) I'm not sure how to manage the merge. Unless someone can do it better, I'm going to use the workaround of asccepting this under a variant title, and merging. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: because there are no overlaps in the history of the main space article and the draft, the best approach would simply be to move the draft over to main space (which will delete the original article), and then restore the deleted edits. Then parts of the old can easily be merged with the new. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: @Jesse Ratner:
Done, merged the draft edit history into this main space article, and added in a short paragraph about the Couillaud Prize while attempting to strip out the PR fluff. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: @Jesse Ratner:
- @DGG: because there are no overlaps in the history of the main space article and the draft, the best approach would simply be to move the draft over to main space (which will delete the original article), and then restore the deleted edits. Then parts of the old can easily be merged with the new. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- anachronist, I think you have it right. A merge is possible. The current article in mainspace , which was started in 2006, was always promotional, and was in 2020 made even worse. It's good that the company moved to replace it. The current version is acceptable, but a merged one would be better because the prize is significant. (I normally don't bother much with prizes a company establishes in its own field, but this cosponsored with the Optical Society of America, the leading organization in the general subject field.) I'm not sure how to manage the merge. Unless someone can do it better, I'm going to use the workaround of asccepting this under a variant title, and merging. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
