Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumencraft

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 (NAC) RMHED 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumencraft

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

Blatant advertising, Spam Article. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Lumencraft. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Funny thing is, I don't see any reason this never got canned by a CSD. It has no merit. Nezzadar (speak) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy delete because this article could be fixed. I agree that the way it is currently written is overly promotional. I'll see if I can locate more sources upon which to base some neutral content. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's already an article from Popular Mechanics listed as a reference. Several other references can be found at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the references, and I think that notability has been established. I don't think the article as it now stands is an advertisement. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we really need all these images? And is it not of concern that they read "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide."? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy with fire: Advertisement. Fails WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPA, as per nom's argument. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was bound to happen on of these days, I agree with Eastmain. While I was out to dinner he added some good refs to the article, I feel sufficient notability has been established. The issue of the tone is a cleanup issue and not a reason for deletion. The overdone images likewise are an editing issue and not grounds for deletion. This can all be discussed and resolved on the talk page, which has never had any attempt to discuss or improve the article on it, because it has never even been created in the first place. Keep Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly altered the article just now to address the issues identified here regarding the tone and the images, so it would be great if everyone could take another look at the new version and re-evaluate their positions, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, due to improvement of article; needs more references and expansion though. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep after enough trimming. Needs to be expanded with more information about the company using third-party sources. Alexius08 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changes to the article have established a minimum of notability and a more encyclopedic tone. --Whoosit (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improved editing. Who says AfDs can't help articles? MalikCarr (talk) 06:33, 20 October 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.