Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashflight

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 no consensus. Vast disagreement over whether the sources constitute "significant coverage." US News is indeed significant; even if it's "only" four paragraphs, that is obviously not a trivial mention. The other sources are quite on the borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flashflight

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

This borders on a CSD A7, but AfD is free, so why not. This article, such as it is, has had nearly 3 years to shape up (and I have waited for quite some time before coming here - see edit history), yet it remains nothing but a blatant product advertisement, frequently edited with what appears to be a clear vested interest. No sources are cited, much less reliable ones, and thus no notability is established. In short, this is yet another unsourced advert for some gimmick product. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basic of the GnNews Archive and GBooks references linked to above (some of them are simply spelling errors for Flashlight,but see a significant discussion in USNEwsWR. an article in International HTribune, Wired, and also [1]. & [2] , and especially [3] typical of inclusion in many gifts recommendation lists. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability besides it being a product that can be purchased. I share the nominator's concerns that there may be an element of promotion to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the links that DGG points to. Mentions in the International Herald Tribune are, I suspect, about the best you're going to get for a toy, and certainly seem to me to satisfy our standards for significant coverage in reliable sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are not significant sources. USNews, four paragraphs. Not significant. IHT, no mention at the link provided, and source paragraph does not read likely to lead to significant material. Wired, not about the product described in the article. The rest - gift catalogs. This is not a notable product, no sources are provided in the article, and these additional mentions are not significant, or even relevant. Miami33139 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article in the IHT appears to be a syndicated piece from the Associated Press, and you can read it in full here. The AP are still a reliable source, and I'm happy to take them as establishing notability. I'd also take the USNews's four paragraphs of coverage as much more than a trivial reference. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the IHT (AP) article is two sentences about the company attending a toy convention with thousands of other people, not the Flashflight product which this article is about. This also explains that the Wired article is about something entirely different and probably a different company altogether, direct evidence of non-notability. If four paragraphs in a capsule review now pass for notability every different flavor of Campbell's soup at your local megamart can have its own article. Miami33139 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what seems to be going on with the Wired article. I don't think it covers "something entirely different", and it isn't about a different company altogether. The article refers to the sale of Spokelit, which appears to be a variant Flashflight line manufactured by Playhard, who are the same company referenced in the AP article. The article talks also about its sale through a third-party retailer (Safety Smart Gear), which I guess is where the suggestion that this is a different company comes in.

To respond to your other points, I'm not sure how an article could constitute "direct evidence of non-notability" (at best it would be absence of evidence, not evidence of absence). And generally speaking (and heh, who thought we could get so heated about a frisbee?) I want to say that I am swayed toward Keep as much by the volume of sources (see DGG's links) as by the length of coverage in each of them. So many single-paragraph references in so many magazines, newspapers, and so on, while none alone would be enough to convince me that the subject is notable, persuade me by their cumulative weight. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to please think about that. We live in a world that is both information rich and commercially exploited. There are thousands of newspapers, magazines, tv, radio, and websites out there and all of them have these throwaway mentions of toys, gadgets and things to buy. There aren't always distinctions between paid placements and advertising in these kinds of mentions. Cumulative weight of extremely minor mentions makes just about any product ever sold, and each brand and each packaging variation, "notable" and that is not what the word "notable" means. Miami33139 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your point, but I see a qualitative difference between the level of coverage this particular product is attracting and the throwaway mentions in the GNews link you just provided. The search you linked to returns four absolutely incidental references. For Flashflight, I'm instead seeing explicit discussion of the product in the links above, and here (a full, focused article) in ColoradoBIZ magazine, and here on MSNBC, and here in a local paper, and here in The Southern, MSNBC again (for a product variant), here in another paper (NB, it's the same company - looks like Playhard is owned by Nite Ize), and here in Spanish, and here (in Hebrew) in Israeli broadsheet Haaretz. For me this is breadth enough to make up for lack of depth in coverage. But I'm glad I'm not in the closing admin's shoes. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The links DGG cites are in fact significant and independent coverage in reliable sources, and are not catalog listings, since the publications do not offer them for sale. Barely satisfies WP:N, though more sources with deeper coverage would help. More information about the developers, about their company would help in writing an article that was more than a product description. Edison (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty sure there is an element of self promotion happening on Wikipedia with regards to this subject, but we can always protect/block if we need to. JBsupreme (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete The coverage is not quite enough for me. The USNews article is the only proper in-depth coverage that is relevant to the article subject. I'd like a little bit more - without that, I don't think WP:GNG is passed. Brilliantine (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This bears a good deal of direct scrutiny. I would like it noted for the record that claims have been made about the article subject being reviewed and otherwise non-trivially covered in reliable sources and that these claims are being directly refuted. A non-party to this AfD should examine the sources closely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:01, 17 December 2009 (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.