Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConsumerLab.com

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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerLab.com

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

The company/website does not appear to have notability on its own standing on available references. They're mentioned in news as a lab used to make a report for story about products, though they're not significant coverage on this company. The page as it stands now is dissemination of contents from company's own page exhibiting their findings used as promo material. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs a lot of work to be neutral and comprehensive, but the subject seems notable. Here's an entry in the Journal of the Medical Library Association, a MSNBC article focused on ConsumerLab.com's testing, another MSNBC article focused on ConsumerLab.com's testing, a NPR piece on ConsumerLab.com, ConsumerLab.com on WNYC, ConsumerLab.com on MSNBC, and ConsumerLab.com as the subject of an FTC letter. It also shows up in a lot of books (including a bunch of not trivial mentions). A lot of that seems to be coverage encouraged by PR, but the subject does seem to be notable. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are not news from MSNBC, but rather submissions from contributors.

The FTC letter is a public record of FTC's routine response to a complaint. A company filed a complaint against

ConsumerLab.com and that is the response FTC provided to them with a copy made available for public view.

WNYC is an interview with the company's president himself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up the authors of those MSNBC articles, they are professional writers for various relatively reliable publications (Linda Carroll, Jacqueline Stenson), so those articles seem useful for this purpose instead of just being press releases. The WNYC feature can't be used as a reliable source, but it does indicate that WNYC recognized the subject as notable. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Dreamyshade says, the article needs a lot of work to be neutral and comprehensive, but the subject is decidedly notable. It is referred to in over 1000 publications on Google books. Even more tellingly, their product reviews have been cited as reliable sources in over 600 articles on Google Scholar. The most basic survey establishes this notability, and this AfD should not have been started. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed ConsumerLab.com Findings and am working on Dreamyshade's suggestions to only list "notable findings" that have third-party sources. Is there anything else you would recommend be added or eliminated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absander (talk • contribs)

The best place to ask questions is on the talk page of the article, with possibly an additional notice on the talk page of the relevant user if you haven't received a response on the article talk page. When adding "keep" votes in a deletion discussion, you need to explain why you believe the article shouldn't be deleted, informed by your understanding of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per what Dreamyshade and Epipelagic said. Moreover, the company has exposed several poor quality products and sellers. The article, as it stands, is also a function of all that was removed from it, some of it too eagerly. --IO Device (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2012 (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.