Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulb America

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulb America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bulb America fails WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I can tell (and appears to have been created by a morning277 sock, who also removed the prod tag.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I tend toward being a "deletionist" when it comes to dubious Wikipedia articles, especially ones about businesses (many of which are the result of contracts and do not warrant articles), Bulb America appears to be an exception. The first three references in the article do the article no good: they are citations to products the company sells, which is not how citations are intended to work. But the fourth citation is to an article written by an independent journalist at a web site with editorial oversight and has a section in it that is specifically about the subject of the Wikipedia article. I was rather surprised to find it, but there it was: legitimate coverage in an independent reliable third-party source. This citation should have been used FIRST in the article, not FOURTH! So whoever wrote the article should seriously consider a rewrite, and second, it appears that the article's subject is actually notable. As a side note, I have heard of this company before now and even purchased bulbs from them. This is not by itself any reason to warrant a Wikipedia article on them, I know! But it is telling. And the fourth citation cements it for me, unless it can be uncovered as somehow published under false pretenses (which I doubt, but I have been fooled before). So it is a badly written piece, perhaps, but need not be deleted (but keep the deletion nominations coming 'cuz there are lots more that do). KDS4444^Talk 04:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rather have tended to be an inclusionist, but not with this sort of advertisement, with most of the references either not being about the company, like the first one from Technorati -- a real article from them actually about the subject would go a long way towards notability --, or just repeating its own PR . Ref 4 is not a RS about the company--the #1 Billion is the total projected LED market! The content in the article about the company is straight unabashed advertising--"The company operates on the philosophy of providing high quality products at competitive prices and excellent customer service. It also believes in providing its customers with honest and upfront service. It has absolute faith in the concept of customer satisfaction and works toward ensuring its customers are completely satisfied." Not just advertising but low quality unconvincing repetitive advertising. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, where are guys like you when I need you?! I am conceding that the article on Vatalyst does rather read like a press release or an advertisement. I checked out the Vatalyst web site to see what they are about, and the site basically says, "We write things about stuff", which isn't very helpful. I have sent them an email asking them to clarify how they select the topics of their articles, and will report back when I hear from them. My current suspicion is that their staff are paid by companies to write newsy articles about them, and if that is so, then the source won't hold for a claim of notability. I also did some checking about Vatalyst on the Internet generally-- other people have expressed concerns that Vatalyst is a format for paid advertising, which now heightens my suspicions. My vote to keep is looking shaky-- we shall see. KDS4444^Talk 04:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.