Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rokform

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rokform

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

The creator disputes the deletion of this as an A7 asserting that the sources are sufficient. I disagree as I feel this is promotional and in the words of the creator It has coverage in CNET, CNN Money, Mashable, WIRED, etc., but many of the articles are routine product promotions. In other words there is not the necessary depth of sourcing. I have therefore listed this so the sources can be discussed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This Rokform topic was in a user page that was listed at MfD. Before that, it made a variety of rounds around Wikipedia. The MfD was closed and the user page was moved to article space by Spartaz after this discussion, who then listed the article at this AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting this up for me Spartaz. As background for reviewers, I submitted this to AfC, it was approved by Noun, then deleted by Spartaz. It does have - for example - a 1,300 word product review-type article in WIRED. Noun feels it passes GNG and Spartaz feels it doesn't pass CORPDEPTH (both reasonable views in my view). I have a disclosed COI and have included all the available sourcing. I was hoping the AfD discussion will deliver a clear consensus one way or another, so I can let them know the decision. Much thanks for your time and consideration. Corporate 16:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WIRED article is fine for a reliable source, but it is about the Rokstand product topic, not the Rokform company topic. If the material did not originate from Rokform, how did ubergizmo[1] (cited in the Wikipedia Rokform article) and WIRED[2] obtain the exact same photo? Also, the WIRED article you tout says that the Rokstand is "the most over-engineered accessory ever made," and "The price for this monster is a whopping $170" and equates the product to "an oversized, hand-machined, aircraft aluminum pen-holder, which weighs a satisfying two pounds and will cost you just $200." Corporate Minion, you keep throwing your "I have a disclosed COI" around like it's some sort of badge of honor. Why didn't you put any of that negative coverage from the WIRED article in the Wikipedia article that you created? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article is a company named Rokform. None of the reliable secondary sources offer significant coverage of the company, Rokform. Delete per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about a non-notable company and product written in a promotional/advertising tone. The article is not supported by adequate reliable sources to establish notability. - Mr X 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG. --No unique names 18:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles did you find discuss the company, Rokform, in any depth? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wired and MacGasm both offer good coverage of the product. If you prefer, move to the name of the product. --No unique names 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Except for perhaps US Federal News October 15, 2011 (Rokform US Trade mark issued), the only source information I'm finding is press releases. Rokform appears to favor AP Alert when it comes to releasing press statements, but Rokform has also used PR Newswire, States News Service, Targeted News Service, and Telecom World Wire. Given the number of press releases (30+) and that the company has only been around one year, seems likely that the material in the sources cited in the article originated with Rokform. WP:GNG requires that the sources be independent of the subject Rokform and news released by Rokform is not independent of Rokform. Another problem is that the topic needs to have received enough coverage in reliable sources so that the quantity of information that can be posted in Wikipedia can amount to a stand alone article. The quantity of text now in the article does not amount to a stand alone article and the likelihood there being reliable source material available to expand the stub into a stand alone article is very unlikely. The quantity of reliable source information available to be posted in Wikipedia will not amount to a stand alone Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the references are self published materials by the company. thisindependent source is just a routine announcement of various new products and Rokform is merely a bullet point in a routine new product announcement. Having products that have been reviewed does not make it generally notable.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable company with one possibly marginally-notable product. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 8 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.