Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GelTech Solutions

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. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GelTech Solutions[edit]

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

I came across this after I was pinged over a G11 I'd done on one of the company's product pages. There does seem to be a COI here as well, but that's kind of an aside.

The long and short of this is that the article has some fairly promotional tones and is almost entirely sourced via WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRIVIAL sources. The only two on the article that are usable are articles from CNN and the HuffPo. The other sources are comprised of reprinted press releases (the TD World one is a press release that isn't clearly marked as such), primary links, links to a general category term (in the case of the NYT, who appears to have only given them one paragraph of routine coverage), and trivial coverage. One of their products is on a list of usable products created by the US Forest Service, but I don’t think that this is something that would make the product or the company notable. It’s not exactly nothing, but that’s not the type of thing that would be seen as something overly noteworthy or significant on Wikipedia.

I tried searching for coverage, however there just doesn’t seem to be anything out there except for a fairly large amount of reprinted press releases. Basically, it looks like the only people who are really interested in talking about the company and its products is the company itself and I don't see where this passes WP:NCORP. If there does happen to be coverage out there (it's possible that it could be buried under the sheer amount of PR the company has released, although typically this doesn't seem to be the case), then the article will still need a pretty good re-write in order to remove the WP:PUFFERY running rampant in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the TD World didn't mark it as a press release makes the entire website seem a little questionable since a good RS will clearly mark a reprinted press release as a press release in some form or fashion. This website didn't do that. This media kit gives off the strong impression that the magazine offers marketing packages that includes editorial articles written about the company/people and their work, so I'd say that this magazine wouldn't be considered a RS even if the article was written by them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note for searchers - be very careful since I'm finding that this seems to be a relatively common issue with some of the sources I'm pulling up. I'm also finding that there is some coverage like this, which is just barely re-worded from this press release - and I stress barely. I also checked my school's academic database and only found more primary sources and PR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTJOURNAL, as this article appears to have material that teaches more subject manner than facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatIsCool (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HeatIsCool: Can you elaborate on this? This is a little confusing. I get the impression that you're likely arguing that Wikipedia is not a place for guides or self-promotion (and possibly by extension that the company is non-notable), but this is sort of brief. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did notice that there are only two sources usable for notability. That's more than most promotional pages have. When deciding the current article was acceptable, I compared it to my experience with other company pages rather than to an unachievable policy-based ideal. There are a lot of company pages on English Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there, but they are, and I don't think it's fair to apply the real standards to some companies but not to others. Besides, this company has a useful product, not some n-th iteration of the same IT concept and not something fringe. Roches (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. the usefulness of a product has never been something that has contributed to notability on Wikipedia and could fall under WP:ITSUSEFUL in a way. (While that applies to articles, I could argue that you're saying that the usefulness of the product makes the existence of the article itself useful.) The same thing goes with the existence of other pages (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I am aware that NCORP is a fairly hard guideline to pass, but it became that strict out of necessity and it is possible to pass the guidelines even if a corporation is particularly niche. I just don't think that this company passes, is all, and while it'd be nice if every company that put out a useful product could be kept, that's not really the way it works around here because there has been so much rampant abuse by various people in the past. And also since there was question about any potential COI I might have on another page, I want to restate that I have no COI here. I don't work for a competitor, I don't work in the business (I'm actually studying to become an archival librarian), and I have no vested interest in removing this page. I came to this page after I was pinged by Jo-Jo Eumerus to a discussion at REFUND over the deletion of other content the article creator had made, much of which was promotional in tone. It's just that all we have here are two sources about one of the company's products. There's really no coverage outside of that from what I can see and it's not for lack of the company slathering the net with various press releases and other marketing material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OTHERCRAP is not an argument for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 is extremely well known for her thoroughness regarding WP:BEFORE. If she was not able to find anything and other editors have not been able to address WP:BURDEN, then I am arguing for delete under lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 04:54, 10 August 2016 (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.