Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lensbaby

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 keep. Consensus seems to be that the article is in need of work, but that the topic is notable and there is enough present to turn into a viable encyclopaedia article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lensbaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No proof of notability, looks like advertisment. Is wired reliable source? PtQa (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While not as big a manufacturer as Canon or Nikon, Lensbaby's lenses are popular with photographers. Wired is reasonably reliable for gadget news, and there are lots of other sources that could be used, such as dpreview or luminous-landscape. -- Autopilot (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For all I know, the head of the company may have been an award-winning photojournalist, but the article is far too credulous when claiming this on the strength of what his company's website says about him. There are other problems with the article too. Warning templates are needed. But as Autopilot says, other sources can be added. Here for example is a mere mention of "lensbabies", but one that shows their significance. Keep (and improve). -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify likely-notable subject but the article appears POV-pushing / promotional. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a bunch of the promotional language, laundry lists of products, bare links, etc. Thank for the reference suggestions. Any further thoughts? -- Autopilot (talk) 21:02, 27 November 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.