Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyLightbulbs

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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TinyLightbulbs

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

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, and I declined because I didn't feel entirely satisfied that is the case. Article was created over a year ago via AfC. The topic does seem to have some marginal legitimate coverage in sources, located via a quick Google search. I don't have a strong opinion either way; I just wanted to draw a bit more attention to the article before any action is taken. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the entity passes WP:GNG per several independent publications: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Alex^{discussion ★} 06:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per below. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I placedthe speedy) The publicity is just that. Your Ref 1 above in the huffington Post and Ref 3 in Turnstyle are identical==with the same author--he published it in both. Looking at the bottom, he wrote it first for turnstyle,)", a digital information service surfacing emerging stories" & republished it in the HP. Re f2 is an academic review, not about the cute gadgets the company sells, but about literally tiny lightbulbs, and so is irrelevant. Ref 4 is insubstantial from THW . Of the refs in the article, 1 * 2 are trivial, 3 is an interview from twintangibles (Anglo-Italian Advisory service whose core business is promoting startups, 4 is the same insubstantial interview from THW as above, 5. is the company';s own site, 6 is a database for finding products where the company p puts in advertising pages.for the listing: apparently a collection of press releases. . So we are left with the Huntington Post reprint interview of the founder, where they let him say what he please, and 95% of it's text is just that , without any attempt at actual journalism besides feeding him the connecting sentences.

Looking now at our article, The first paragraph display in the typical promotional editing style how a personal need led to the creation of the company (this is a favorite trick of g one batch of paid editors, but that doesn't mean the w writer of this is among them--he may be innocently copying their style. There's an emphasis on just howe and when the commission is paid. There's a curious absence of information about what they actually sell -- typical for companies whose ingenious model is more important than actual product. And there's links to 3 very well known crowd funding systems, to make sure we see some well known names. And the first ref is the Alexa rank. Most editors of these type of article know enough by now not to put it in the actual article. And there's no studiously informal picture of the principals in the firm. So I suppose things are improving DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DGG, I should have notified you sooner. My apologies. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:09, 22 November 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.