Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncolor

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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broncolor

Paid insertion into Wikipedia. Self promotion. More information on the spam/advertisement by banned Zithan (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible references at all to establish notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporate vanity, notability not established by reliable sources. MER-C 10:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources, no evidence that the company is notable. Laurent (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-consumer business, obvious advertising/brochure tone; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cirt and YellowMonkey.No credible ref to establish notablity Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Widely known company in photographic lighting. How can you delete an article on a company that names its product "Flooter"? Here are print book showing their products: [1] Macro and close-up photography handbook By Stan Sholik, Ron Eggers; [2] Professional interior photography By Michael G. Harris; [3] Glamour nude photography By Robert Hurth, Sheila Hurth; [4] Fotopraktikum By Gerkan Meinhard Von, Ernst A Weber, Meinhard Von Gerkan; [5] Focal encyclopedia of photography By Michael R. Peres (calling the company "the leading Swiss manufacturer"). Notability clearly established. Fg2 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be a major company; the sources above are sufficient. /there are probably product reviews to be found as well. The actual content is fairly descriptive and non-spammy. Paid editing has its problems: the author wrote what amounts to a minimally sourced article, which could have been sourced much better, as xe was trying to satisfy the client, not a produce a good article. DGG (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid article, POV pushing. Aditya ^α _ß 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As Fg2 pointed out, they do show up in a lot of books [6], also in a few academic pieces [7]. It seems that they're used by a lot of professional photographers and are well regarded and notable in that field (and also to academics that use their products). It's a shame there aren't some sources that focus on the company rather than mentions of the products but if multiple notable products makes a company notable then they're notable. Ha! (talk) 14:47, 24 June 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.