Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic Supply

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. I will be happy to userfy upon request. —Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Supply

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

non notable company: only local sources, plus fastest growing 5000 . "Fastest growing" usually means "new and not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Company: Non-Local links in external reference. Also, cannot find definition of "Non Notable" --John.Donoghue (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explaining, the external references do in fact contain product reviews, which I apologize for not noticing--I should have checked them more carefully-- and the question is whether they are sufficiently substantial and independent to support the article. (If so, the article would need to be rewritten to emphasise them as references). It's a little out of my field, so I ask advice: if they should be so considered, I will withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's certainly some coverage there but a good portion of the articles seem to simply be summaries of company-generated content (blog posts, videos and the like). There's coverage of some of their products but coverage of the company itself (the subject of this article) is very thin on the ground. Much of what might be considered coverage is very Burlington, Vermont-centric and is certainly "local" coverage. Most concerning is that in trying to establish the genesis of the coverage (as in, whether it's independent or just a reprint of company promo material) I find myself being constantly led back to this page which suggests the article creator has a not unsubstantial conflict of interest and calls into question whether Wikipedia is simply being used to promote the subject rather than cover it in an encyclopaedic fashion. Stalwart111 10:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feed back. Totally fair to call into question conflict of interest. I thought I was being clear on my COI, as the guidelines are pretty clear that I should be especially clear and be held to a higher stndard in these sorts of cases, that but its clear I was not and will try to remedy that. That said, given the edits and clean up that's been undertaken at suggestion, I think its much more in line with the encyclopedic simplicity and informational with a neutral tone. please let me know if I missed the mark.John.Donoghue (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you have made a few edits since I posted (like this one) that have helped to improve the tone of the article and remove some of the more promotional content. Maintaining a neutral point of view is a good start and phrasing things in an encyclopaedic fashion helps, but I still haven't seen much effort being put into substantiating the notability of the company itself, which is our inclusion criteria here. What significant coverage has the company received beyond that which is available from local newspapers? What notable thing has the company done or achieved or built, beyond being one of 500 fast growing companies 5 years in a row (a fact which can only be verified by a press release/blog post from the company itself)? And I remain concerned about the conflict of interest (something you openly declared today) which has so far seen you make 14 edits to the article in question, 12 more than the next most prolific editor... me. I commend you for declaring your conflict and I'm not suggesting you have been/are being dishonest about it. I just think you might still be slightly short of what Wikipedia requires for a company to be included here. Under the circumstances, I certainly wouldn't oppose userfication to allow you to continue to work on the article in your own space until some of that significant coverage has been generated. If you hold the role I think you do, you're likely responsible for those efforts too. Spend some time promoting the company away from Wikipedia and then we can cover it here. It's not going to work if you try it the other way around. Stalwart111 05:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I wanted to make sure I had my COI i's dotted and t's crossed before I waded into the next part. I really appreciate you saying I was not being clear enough so I could fix that. I do have a lot of touches on the article, in no small part because I was having a heck of a time with character inserts and formatting for the side bar and logo, but that's not an excuse. So as to the level of inclusion, I am still not clear on Wikipedia's guidelines on size/significance. Is it a play by ear? Is thinks like the Inc 5000 2013 list a good start? I look at a company page like [Chassis Plans], a contemporary in size, fields, reach and age. Should they be taken down as well? Ok Maybe they need to clean up their self linking referential press releases but I think that sort of info is useful not to the companies, but to searchers and users of Wikipedia. Or at least, it seems like it should be. I am not talking about Wikipedia as a Yellow pages mind you (a horrifying thought), but rather as a quick references source for users to see who a company is without the polish and veneer of their corporate branding and marketing spin. Now, there is definitely a major concern about marketing and COI with companies, and I ran into this when I was working on the CYOA page which required full clarity and disclosure on any and all changes because I agree, its got to be about the information, and information should be neutral. Thank you by the by for engaging in this conversation! John.Donoghue (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria doesn't relate to size but to "notability" - a specifically defined quality here at Wikipedia. You should start by having a read of WP:GNG (Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline) and then WP:CORPDEPTH (the guideline that sets out the level of coverage expected before a company is considered notable). Given you are as free to nominate other articles for deletion as the nominator here is to nominate this one, suggesting that other articles of a comparable quality also exist is not considered a very strong argument. If it, too, is not notable, you are free to nominate it for deletion. While the idea of a spin-free directory of businesses might sound like a lovely idea, Wikipedia is quite particularly not a directory (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Wikipedia's aim is to record companies (and other things) deemed to be of such historical significance that they warrant preservation in the annals of history. We base that judgement on what other people have said (and the extent to which they have said it) in reliable sources. Like I said, consider whether it is worth your while preserving the content in your own space here (which Wikipedia is happy for you to do) until such time as you have generated a few more articles that give the company significant coverage. In reality, that isn't too hard. Then it can be moved back. In that regard, you should also have a read of WP:TOOSOON. If it's not notable yet, you'll do your reputation more harm than good (as you can imagine) by trying to shoehorn your article into Wikipedia when it simply isn't ready. Give it a few months and it might be a different story. Stalwart111 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed fall into that trap other articles of a comparable quality also exist. Good call, rookie move. I think I was saying the same thing about the directory though, Wikipedia is not Directory or yellow pages, but rather a resource for information. Totally agree. But I digress, let me refocus back to the Notability. Does "Logic Supply was the first Mini-ITX online distributor in the United States" qualify as notable? I did real the notability standards, and 3rd party articles makes perfect sense and I tried to include ones that were not just regurgitation of Logic's press releases. While some are Vermont based, media sources like the Vermont Business Magazine and The Burlington Free Press have very good reps. Are they not viable?John.Donoghue (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think both the Vermont Business Magazine and the The Burlington Free Press are probably both reliable sources, but that's not really the issue. For a company to be notable we generally expect the company to have been the subject of more than just local coverage (thus my comment above about "local" coverage). Every local car dealership or hardware store is likely to get some coverage at some stage (product launches, business openings, break-ins, sponsorship of a local sporting team, annual sales). It's fairly arbitrary but editors would normally expect coverage from other states, even other countries - verification that the company has made a significant impact, enough to have been noticed by media from outside their area. Being the first online distributor of a particular form factor probably isn't enough of a claim to notability. Had they invented the small form factor, different story. Stalwart111 05:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The local press coverage doesn't establish notability. On the other hand, Anandtech, and Tom's Hardware are reliable sources which I would use to count towards notability. And although the coverage is not specifically about the company, it's about their products and clearly associates the products to the company in the reviews which are significant. However, coverage in two different sources isn't enough for me. If there were other publications or sources with equivalent coverage, it might push it over for me. -- Whpq (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as everyone above says there seems to be at least "some" evidence of notability and John.Donoghue's contributing to this discussion says that there is an intent on the creator's part to improve this misplaced draft and make the claims of notability more obvious. Technical 13 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (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.