Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrickHouse Security

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrickHouse Security[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References contain no in depth coverage of the company. Kaimahi (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes several mentions in prominent news organizations of the company, its products and its founder. Bloomberg's BusinessWeek, ABC News and The NY Times are directly cited. The Youtube video itself is a compilation of several prominent media mentions of the company via television appearances by its founder on Fox News, CNN and NBC's The Today Show. I will find more third party sources and add them to the article.Timtempleton (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added several more sources of media coverage to substantiate notability. Let's see what the consensus is.Timtempleton (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions is not what is needed. What is needed is in depth coverage of the company. Kaimahi (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the author of this article. I have identified extensive media coverage of the company, including The New York Times, USA Today, the Today Show and Fox News. These are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the significant coverage addresses the company's products directly and in detail, and is indeed even international, thereby meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The information is all verifiable, meeting the criteria of WP:NRV. The notability is not temporary, and is not based on a single short term event, thus meeting the criteria of WP:NTEMP. The extensive product coverage is almost sufficient to warrant one or more separate product pages, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, but for now the best place to collect all the information is in the company article.Timtempleton (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up ref spam. References 1, 2 6, 9, 15 are not RS. 3, 8 are just a mention. 5 does not mention it at all. 10-11 are the same story, and 12=10. 14-17 are a single story; only one is needed. 18-20 are also same story - only one needed. LaMona (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been noticeably improved since being nominated. Simply out of curiosity @LaMona: How is a local TV station not reliable? Granted the news article is not in-depth and may have information supplied by the company but generally local news can be reliable. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually consider youtube to be a RS. It's the problem of "provenance" -- on youtube you don't know who is responsible for the content, and whether it has been edited. In this case, the video was uploaded by someone at Brickhouse (that's the link provided). The actual show on the site of the tv station would at least be more trustworthy. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the television appearances were all available to direct link - they may be some day as storage gets cheaper and we move to 5G 1GB/s cellular streaming. I was able to find and add a record from the NBCUniversal.com site mentioning the Today Show appearance and description, just not the actual live video that is in the YouTube compilation. The two together should meet the RS criteria. As for the other links, they are all valid media outlets. I agree that there is some repetition in content, but that's to show the breadth of company media coverage. If the AFD is closed with a Keep resolution, I'll tighten up the repetitive sourcing.Timtempleton (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand with the YouTube link but I was actually referring to the myfoxdc.com link. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider that one non-RS, just redundant with the four other reports of the same thing -- most likely based on the original AP story. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently, YouTube becomes a convenient place to store the information even at the official television channelsShad Innet (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ORGDEPTH and thus also WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2015 (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.