Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrismaStar

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PrismaStar[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

nn company Losr2300 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) — Losr2300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am confused. How is Businessweek, PC World, and other 3rd party sources on the article not sufficient proof of notability? The article needs some cleanup (convert links to references), but I believe notability is firmly established. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Business Week article is about the guy, not the company so that one doesn't count. The Czech PC World article is actually about the product AnswerOil and only passingly mentions PrismaStar as the company the made it. Also not really sure if that short article can properly be called a "feature piece." The ZDNet one is also only about AnswerOil and doesn't mention PrismaStar at all. It's status as relaible soure isn't exactly clear either as that "article" is technically part of a blog. The TechCrunch is a blog of unclear reliable sourceness that once again only mentions AnswerOil. So in summary we have one article about the guy, two questionable sources about thr product, and one article about the product that only has a trivial mention of the company. The only one that even says PrismaStar in it is the last one. While you could make a case that AnswerOil is possibly notable, unless reliable sources can be found that actually talk about PrismaStar I would say we should delete. Spiesr (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google search for "PrismaStar" brings up nearly 6,000 results. It's definitely a working company. The articles only make fleeting references to PrismaStar in the same way articles about the iPod only make fleeting references to Apple. People are talking about the product, not the company. In this way, the Wikipedia article can be used to list and describe the activities of the company as it expands beyond AnswerOil. It's a real company mentioned in established publications; TechCrunch is one of the largest technology sites on the Internet with nearly 2 million RSS subscribers, it's unfair to dismiss it as a place of "unclear reliable sourceness". — 87.194.220.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hello, This is Josh Tabin, CEO of PrismaStar writing from our London office. I have NEVER written anything in Wikipedia (including this article), so please excuse me if it is non-standard for me to write here in this format/discussion. One of our outside investors (from the well-known venture capital firm Draper, Fisher Jurvetson, which, incidentally, would be another outside reference source) told me about this new Wikipedia entry, and when I came here to see it, I saw this discussion about how we, "will be deleted without reliable sources that actually talk about PrismaStar." If it's ok, I can have one of our staff post some links that verify PrismaStar as a company, and if you guys want to delete any other content that is "non-verifiable", that would be fine with me. -J. Tabin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.59 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — 82.69.42.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another comment re: the "unclear reliable sourceness" of TechCrunch -- Mr. John Biggs of TechCrunch wrote about his own personal experience with PrismaStar's unique technology, and further, if he is considered such an unreliable source, why would his comments also be picked-up by THE WASHINGTON POST? Are they too an unreliable source? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701091.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.59 (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — 82.69.42.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company seems notable enough to me. They (and their product) have been written about by some well-known and reputable publications. Google turns up quite a bit of info. I am not entirely sure how it does not meet criteria set forth by WP:ORG. →^Jog_Con← 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment. I'm not trying to start any issues outside the discussion for AfD, but the nominator registered a new account on May 2nd. Then within 20 minutes, nominated 5 AfD's, then never edited anything else afterwards. That just seems strange to me. →^Jog_Con← 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the product AnswerOil that is notable, not the company PrismStar. Think of Rubik's Cube, it is notable, not the company that produced and manufactures it. I am very concerned about the promotional tone and obvious conflict of interest. My suggestion would be to move the article to "AnswerOil" and do a complete rewrite after reviewing WP:SOURCE and WP:COI. There is no use putting forth opinions in an AfD that don't rely on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Drawn Some (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to play Devil's advocate, but both the creator and the toy company that marketed the Rubik's Cube have articles on Wikipedia. But humor aside, I do understand what your saying. I suppose it's just a difference of opinion. I feel that even though the company makes the product, it's the product that makes the company. I don't disagree that the item in question for this AfD needs some revisions, but the corporation itself seems to hold up to WP:ORG. Perhaps someone with a neutral point of view who is still familiar with corporations (or just is willing to take some time to do the work) can clean it up so we don't have the conflict of interest or bias. →^Jog_Con← 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, I did a lot of looking for references on both before coming to the conclusion that the company doesn't meet WP:CORP and that the software is notable. Also, Ideal Toy Company probably wouldn't be notable if the Rubik's Cube were its only product. ;-P Drawn Some (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm going to remain neutral. Both sides present valid points. I'd like to see what a neutral party could do to improve the article, because as it stands now, the substance seems a little weak for full inclusion on it's own rather than as a sub-topic on AnswerOil. →^Jog_Con← 20:12, 9 May 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.