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. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightology[edit]

Lightology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. It won an award in 2005, and it built a new, pretty large showroom. That's about it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - considering its presentation along with Tech Lighting, this appears to be advertising. The references appear to be glorified press releases.--Rpclod (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current WP:RS indicate is passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused (me). I don't understand Tony's conclusion that this article passes WP:GNG. There are no independent, reliable sources indicating this firm's Notability. Which are they? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be part of an aggrandising network of articles with self-created sources in violation of WP:PROMOTION Bdbdd (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gregory Kay - between the three subjects (Lightology, Tech Lighting, and Gregory Kay) there does appear to be some notability, but not enough for three articles. Normally when we discount "local" sources, we are talking about small-town newspapers, not something like the Chicago Tribune. The reason is that such papers are indiscriminate - they literally cover all businesses within the town at some point. The Tribune (and other Chicago-based sources) is a different story entirely. It most certainly does not cover every business and in depth coverage by the publication of a Chicago business carries implication of notability as in depth coverage of any other subject would. Additionally, there are multiple trade publications covering some combination of Lightology/Tech Lighting/Gregory Kay in depth, and trade publications that meet the RS guidelines (e.g. have editorial control) are perfectly valid reliable, secondary sources. Thus, notability has been established by indepth coverage both locally and in trade publications. However 3 articles are overkill. The most natural place to cover all 3 subjects in one article is Gregory Kay. Thus, I am suggesting all three be merged together at that title and will volunteer to do so (and clean up promotional language) if the AfD consensus accepts the idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thre is no ref from Chicago Tribune". In fact there is only a single ref. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. No effort was made during two weeks to fix the problem with sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If someone wants to find marketing material for this firm, I'm sure they'll have no trouble doing so without Wikipedia's help. - Richfife (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:GNG 53 news sources come up but of them 17 are press releases, 1 is an advert blog, 5 are Routine coverage of sales, 3 were Trivial mentions with lightology not even being an important part of the article. Low standards might save this article but it isn't note worthy in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:17, 8 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.