Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US-Mattress

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. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US-Mattress

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

Contested prod - No indication of

reliable sources are added that could establish it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete par being the nominator. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there article has been here for a couple of years, and no independent sources have been added. I searched Google and could not find one example of coverage, other than selling and review sites; the Top 500 retailer site (which may or may not be a quality source as it sells reports on companies) no longer lists it, removing even that tenuous claim. As such, it fails
WP:COMPANY. Seaphoto^Talk 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete article is largely promotional and doesn't make it clear how this company might meet
WP:CORP. Not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The proposed deletion request came from a user that keeps trying to vandalise the page. We keep fixing it, and now the vandal submitted the deletion request. We are a business. And the vandal is either a disgruntaled customer or competitor. All of the current notations are accurate, verifiable and up to date.Brightonmiplace (talk) 4:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)— Brightonmiplace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See the article history - the negative comments came from South8wind and later RayBCharles, both of which are blocked from sockpuppeting. Both the AFD and PROD were posted by me - for the reasons stated in the deletion nomination up above. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have a company does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion. See

WP:ITEXISTS. Seaphoto^Talk 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Top 500 link has been updated. The Internet Retailer Top 500 list is generated by the e-commerce industry leading media company, Internet Retailer. US-Mattress is one of top 500 retailers in the country. Also, the trademark link regarding 'Comfort Scale' 10 point measuring system has a been updated.This is clearly an important website, as 289,127 people visited in February 2011.Brightonmiplace (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:CORP on specifics that might help make the case for notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply' Thank you for pointing out the error citing page stats. Reviewing notability requirements, the previously mentioned Internet Retailer magazine's annual ranking is significant. Internet Retailer is the ecommerce industry trade magazine, and citation of a company as an industry leader is notable.Brightonmiplace (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment are there any other sources you can point to here. I and other editors are not finding Internet Retailer to be very compelling as a
reliable source (see above). Also US-Mattress is mentioned only twice in this publication and both are simple reprints of press releases, a bit odd for an entry in their top 500, raises questions about the reliability of the publication.--RadioFan (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment worth noting that user Brightonmiplace has disclosed a COI (he/she is an employee of this company) here, kudos to this user for their honesty. I am a bit concerned about the declaration on the article's talk page which appears to indicate editing this article may be a part of this person's job and may indication a sense of
ownership here. Hopefully it's just me misunderstanding the wording.--RadioFan (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment In response to the coverage concern expressed; there are some articles that will be added to the page.

Donation Sponsorship with the MHS
Sleep Easy Night with the MHS
Buysafe press release addressing US Mattress as the subject.
GR Consulting business case study about US Mattress
Design Changes article in Internet Retailer magazine.
FurnitureCrate.com's SXSW Participation referenced in WXYZ.com. Furniturecrate is a US Mattress company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightonmiplace (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these qualify as

reliable sources

I'm afraid to say. The first two links are advertisements, the third is a press release, the fourth page is a case study for an ERP system, which is entirely separate from the notability issue of the company, the fifth article returns a 404 not found, and the sixth article doesn't even mention the company.

Please, have a good look at the

WP:CORP (section primary criterion) pages, to see what constitutes a reliable source. Trivial mentions, self published information (Press releases and advertising) and small article's from local sources are not considered reliable sources that can be used to established notability. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2011 (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.