Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sealevel Systems

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 no consensus. Discounting the input from the COI editor, I find no consensus either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sealevel Systems

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

Non-notable company, this article is just a list of patents they have. Patents don't prove notability as per WP:CORP and WP:GNG, significant, independent coverage does- there is no evidence for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I dislike the process by whuch this article came into being, the awards and the coverage of the Space Shuttle arm control electronics at least seem legit. — Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically promotional. The appropriate response to articles like this is WP:TNT. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the paid editor who created this article. I did spend considerable time reading up on the technical stuff I could find in order to understand it and thus determine if the company's work was notable; I believe their patents and the work with the Space Shuttle arm control merited the notability. If you give me feedback on how to make the article better, I'd like to do that versus deleting it. Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PATENTS says "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to the existence or contents." Awards are a much better signifier of notability. Brianhe (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are also a common form of puffery for businesses. Djhuff (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, awards are evidence that independent companies/organisations think they are achieving something, patents are often vague, written by the own person/company/organisation, and have far less worth than the companies/people say they do. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not all awards are created equal. With some independent organizations, all you have to do is fill out a form and send in your check. Many awards have far less worth than what people prescribe to them. Djhuff (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in the case of Sealevel Systems, your awards aren't actually winning anything, but getting to the Final of an Award (barely notable if at all), and being the third best business in South carolina (which is quite good, but still only a local award). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. Perhaps Wikipedia should rethink the whole "awards show a company is achieving something" idea. That's all I wanted to point out. Djhuff (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but Wikipedia also has the WP:GNG criteria, which says that you need to be notable to have an article. Sealevel Systems fails this, despite their list of patents and not very good awards. The most important thing is coverage from independent sources, for good awards they are often covered by good sources e.g. newspapers. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite how this article came to be, it appears the creator has now declared his status albeit a bit late. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water! I agree with Brianhe, with the coverage of the Space Shuttle arm control electronics in the article, and being that there are numerous WP:RS that are well referenced, the article subject passes WP:GNG and crosses the threshold of notability. WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe delete and incubate for now - The article is neat and sourced but the sources could be a little better and my searches here, here, here and here suggest they haven't received as much news coverage as they could. Now granted, they are much worse articles so at least this one has sources but it could still be a little better. SwisterTwister talk 15:13, 21 May 2015 (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.