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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrightPhase Energy

[edit]

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, also reads like an WP:ADVERT Madcoverboy (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has been reported on by several RS such as Reuters Group plc [1] and it does not seem overly promotional. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP, and on the verge of an advert. It does not explain why the company is notable, the article claims it is in the early seed phase (which would by far rule out notability) and a news search finds nothing. There is one link claiming to be a independent source, but this — identical to the prose (but not publisher) provided by Icewedge — is a press release launched by the company and therefore not recognized as a reliable source in establishing notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both that and the "forbes" link are indeed self-written press releases. I'm digging around for any other sources before commenting. Kuru ^talk 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, here are some additional sources: Matter Network, Eco-Mod Skylight Makes 60% Solar Efficiency Available Now,Energy Business Review, BrightPhase signs letter of intent with Appalachian Energy,Entrepreneur's for Energy Efficiency, Inc. Recognizing Member Contributions, Renewable Energy World, Investing in Solar Niche Markets. Though I did not include these in the original Wikipedia article, the last one in particular indicates that even a "seed phase" company can be news worthy and notable based on its patents, products, and viability. I think these contributions are significant, and look forward to further discussion. I will also be seeing how I can work these in to the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolfs (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Author's additional sources fail WP:RS. They are (in order) a blog, a press release (exact same content is found on another news site here), trivial (list's BrightPhase as a member/participant in a corporate organization), and trivial (mentions Brightphase as one of several stocks to watch). I nearly listed this page a few days ago myself, but decided to wait and see where it went. In the end, I don't think the company is notable. Livitup (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Icewedge.Beagel (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primarily non-independent sources, no stronger ones have been provided. --Dhartung | Talk 01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A little bit of WP:ADVERT concern could be fixed, but overall the company seems to fall slightly below notability. LotLE×talk 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any actual notable business accomplishmentDGG (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2008 (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.