Talk:Mouser Electronics

What to do with this article?

I'm in a bit of a quandry about Mouser. My gut feeling says they are worth having an article about. They've been around for decades, and are well known. You'll find a Mouser catalog on the desk of just about anybody in the electronics trade. On the other hand, I can't find any material on line which isn't either direct marketing from them, or puff pieces in trade rags, none of which really meets wp:v. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Similar company RS Components have had an article for years so I can't see why not. Mrstonky (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Is it mouse-er or mau-zer? Mrstonky (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is mauws-zer. Ace Frahm (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability, primary sources, additional sources needed, stop edit warring, and no POV

This article does not demonstrate that Mouser is notable per WP:GNG, or WP:CORP. There is, as yet, no substantive coverage found in multiple independent reliable sources over time. I'm certainly aware of its existence, and have used its services, but it bluntly has not met the sourcing requirements yet. So stop edit warring over the top templates. It will be better for editors to find the sources to fix the problems, and not to edit war. Oh, and "most well known" is POV and unsourced, so it's gotta go. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the only edit warrior here is you. Notability was provided, but you removed it. Knowledge was stripped from the article. Mouser has been advertizing in the magazines best-known to electronics engineers for years. You needlessly plastered "I MUST HAVE SOURCES!" templates without first specifying why you need them or how that is vitally important to anyone else, and you did it without attempting to find any yourself, which you easily could have done if it was so important. Who exactly do you think you have helped? Ace Frahm (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You are a fairly new editor (by edit count), so it would be best if you read up on WP:Notability and specifically WP:CORP. WP:Verifiability ("we must have sources") is a policy, though, and WP:RS ("use reliable sources") is a strong content guideline, though, so it's not me you're arguing against, it's pretty much the whole Wikipedia community. And the truth is that I expanded, in April 2013, three sources along with the tags I added. I looked for sources a bit (I always do), and found nothing useful at that time. As for who is helped:

1. readers of this article are helped, because they are notified that the content of the article comes from Mouser itself, (like a press release) and not from independent reliable reporting.
2. other editors are helped, because they're alerted to the need for sources. The fact that none were added by other editors who watch categories and this article, means that such sources actually are rather few and far between. Nobody, so far, seems to have written about Mouser in any depth.

Anyways, just today, when I reverted your removal of the tags, I added and sourced two claims, because they were findable now. So rather than argue with me, you should also do useful work finding independent reliable sources, instead of (perhaps unintentionally) trying to hide the defects in articles from readers. Also, please do not add claims about popularity without citing a source. As it stands, this article is vulnerable to deletion, due to lack of WP:N notability. It's not just me saying that. --Lexein (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And there have been concerns expressed by at least one other editor since 2007 - see #What to do with this article?. --Lexein (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Added some info and sources. You can help. --Lexein (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)