Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChristmasLightsEtc.com

ChristmasLightsEtc.com

ChristmasLightsEtc.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. The sources that appear are weak. Should be deleted. IvoShandor (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. No notable sources were found on both Google and Yahoo! search, I believe this article may have been created solely for advertising purposes as well. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I checked 4 of the refs and they were trivial, from the looks of the others they will be the same, but I couldn't gurantee that without reading them. Szzuk (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment. Per this message on my talk page, I have reopened this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I have added links that show live news coverage from Fox News and CNN regarding the company sales and products, as well as verifiable media coverage from additional national outlets. After the page was flagged for deletion I studied numerous similar pages, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsam_Hill. I could continue to add media coverage from other sources, but after providing coverage from CNN, CBS, Fox News, Associated Press, Smart Money, and NY Times, I thought enough had been added. Should I just continue to list news sources? I followed all of the posted guidelines, so please let me know what else can be done. JeanetteDi (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Sources are weak, focusing on the Christmas light market and mentioning the company in passing or as a source for quotes rather than specifically dealing with the company. Other references are not substantial in nature or are press releases. The article is borderline promotional. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• I had another look and checked more refs. My opinion has firmed up from probably delete to definitely delete - advert. Szzuk (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - per SwisterTwister et al. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Trivial coverage in reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I understand that Wikipedia editors have very specific criteria that must be met, and an endless list of article entries that need review and judging. Please take a closer look at the credentials, however. News teams have hand picked the company using their own research, and filmed at the office location, interviewing members of the company, and focusing on sales and products. Some of the media is much more in depth than others, but just because there is a variety does not warrant all segments to be discredited to trivial. I have reviewed similar pages in detail, and the credentials are on par with other companies.

Main points are:

• Notable news coverage
  • Both Fox News and CNN have done interviews at the Alpharetta, GA showroom
  • Mentions in larger papers such as New York Times and USA Today
• Growth
  • Recognized by Inc 500/5000 magazine multiple years. #184 in 2006
  • #274 in Entrepreneur Hot 500 in 2007
• Size/Traffic
  • Top Alexa Ranking in Christmas Shopping category
  • Consistently a top of Google for top searches such as Christmas Lights and LED Christmas Lights
  • 2.6 million visitors in 2010
• Other
  • Energy Star partner
  • A+ BBB Rating

The press releases are listed above as part of the reasoning for the page being suggested for deletion. Neither press release is being listed as a news source, but merely as a reference backing a fact that a specific tree manufactured by Christmas Lights Etc is displayed at Six Flags, and another referencing a partnership with a tree brand. If press releases are discouraged as references, I have not seen evidence of that in Wikipedia outside of this page, and please direct me to whichever help page would have provided me with that information. I am trying to improve the page in an effort to keep the page on Wikipedia. JeanetteDi (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep News stories are from notable sources such as FOX and CNN. As noted by JeanetteDi, there is no difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsam_Hill and this page. There is enough information on this page to warrant a Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenflynn (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. I've tagged Balsam_Hill for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have sent that to afd but I didnt have time to check the reliability of the refs. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG.
  • Significant coverage: Fox News segment is almost completely based on Christmas Lights Etc, filmed on location, with most of the reporting being the dialogue with Christmas Lights Etc. Christmas Lights Etc receives almost complete focus of the entire segment.
  • Reliable: The interview was conducted by Johnathan Serrie, Fox News Reporter, Atlanta Bureau, and published by Fox News. He also mentioned the company in a blog post that day, referencing his segment: http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/23/led-lights-shine-bright-this-christmas/ . I do not feel the blog post is noteworthy, but I do believe it supports the reliability of the source.

I believe the other guidelines - secondary, independent of subject, and presumed are not in debate regarding Christmas Lights Etc.