Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LifeGem

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. Even those supporting "keep" were concerned about major issues in the article. If anyone wants this userfied for improvement and subsequent restoration to mainspace, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LifeGem[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There have been questions around if this company meets WP:COMPANY as per its talk page but appears no one has nominated it. User Pformenti wanted to nominate for deletion but didn't know how to so am doing it on their behalf. Questions have been raised about the company and their process and if it is even possible, as per this report. http://cremationdiamondreport.com/lifegem2007.html NZFC^(talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are WP:RS such as this and this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article tone and structure are fairly blatantly self-referential and the article itself is, IMHO, promotionalism in action. Quis separabit? 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is fairly promotional at present, there is hope, and TonyTheTiger shows there are some sources to show notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The links you provided TonytheTiger are written by contributors not journalists. Wikipedia does not allow articles written by contributors to be count as valid sources to be cited from. See here, he is a contributor. Other Huffpo article has no author of mention [1] Furthermore there are no scientific journals or journalists for that matter who have written about what the company claims on their process. Both (HuffPo) AND (FoodandWine) do not constitute as valid sources. Even Forbes is looked down upon on Wikipedia. In addition, there is a clear discrepancy between the actual patent (states it uses sublimation) versus what's written on the Wiki page. Other information such as TOTAL REVENUE is also not founded off any sources. This is a classic instance of promotionalism. Pformenti (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an article, it's an advertisement, and the sources a reek of PR. The two "reliable sources" TonyTheTiger cites above are nothing of the sort: one is HuffPo puff piece that doesn't even have a byline and the other is really only minor quirky story about the brewpub. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hate the product, the article is 10 years out of date and full of dead links, and the whole article stinks of advertising. But the company is referenced by articles from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. IMO it needs to be updated and rewritten, not deleted.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's borderline G11, but the company is most likely notable. Deleting with a consensus against notability would prejudice recreation, so I have to vote keep — AfD is not cleanup, but it does need substantial rewriting from top to bottom. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOPROMO which is policy and trumps notability considerations. We do not allow Wikipedia to be used for advertising/promotion, period. The issue of notability is purely secondary. The article cannot be kept in it's present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ISNOT deletion per Ad Orientem. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:09, 5 July 2018 (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.