Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geobulb LED Bulbs

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 merge to LED lamp. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geobulb LED Bulbs[edit]

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

Borderline CSD G11 — possibly spam for a non-notable product, created and largely authored by a single-purpose account. Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article does not establish notability, with only one story from a reliable source primarily about the subject. And that's in the paper local to the manufacturer. The other sources are either primary, OR (the UL listing), or passing mentions. I searched for more coverage and found mostly blogs and product reviews. I do not believe the subject is notable. Rees11 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and welcome the newcomer. There is evidence of notability. Give the user a chance. Maybe even try helping her. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple editors on the article, making the SPA charge largely irrelevant now. C. Crane Offers New Energy-Saving LED Light Bulb Powerful Enough to Replace Common Halogen Type MR16 Bulbs.Published: November 17, 2009 got printed in the New York Times, no it is likely that the product is indeed notable. Collect (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a NYT story, it's a press release reprinted in the NYT. Rees11 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing to the contrary. Moreover, the NYT prints few press releases at all, so the fact is the NYT regarded it as notable. Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am seeing some critical coverage of this subject, ie [1] so given that it's not all press release material out there I think this article should remain. JBsupreme (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LED lamp LED lamps as replacements for incandescent and CFL are undoubtedly notable, but I see no evidence this one manufacturer warrants coverage separate from that article. I42 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LED lamp. One printed press release from the vendor and one Boston.com article do not seem sufficient evidence of notability to justify a stand-alone article. A niche product which has not apparently achieved a large sales volume and has not had much independent press coverage. Edison (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LED lamp, although I would prefer a dedicated article to LED light bulb (why "lamp"?). LED light bulbs may be an important change in our lighting culture as we move toward greater energy efficiency; that change is notable, since one can find many articles on the subject. I was just looking for information on what the status of these bulbs were, with an eye to buying a couple of them. Wikipedia is lacking in information, alas. This article reads more like a company catalog, but that said, it is unique in telling me that the geobulb exists and is one of the viable options to the ordinary light bulb; there are others, e.g. pharox (http://www.mypharox.com), but there are not many. How would one choose between them? What are their features? So I say merge for now, but I ask for an article on the LED light bulb. Bdushaw (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give two links: nytimes on pharox, los angeles times on pharox - both refer to the generic problem of replacing the incandescent, as well as the compact florescent, light bulbs with a more energy efficient option. The geobulb is in the same category, it looks like. Bdushaw (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2010 (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.