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.
Very promostional sounding, needs citations. —— Eagle101[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)help?]] 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried fixing it before nominating? - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to be written in a very neutral, non promotional way. What would you suggest fixing Eagle101? If you have suggestions, please implement them so the page can be improved. That would be more beneficial than simply deleting the page. tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add an appropriate "Uncited article" template, then give the creating editors a chance to come up with some information sources. The fact that a relatively neutral and non-controversial article, about a company that makes hot tubs, apparently needs some reference citations, is not grounds for deletion. The claim that the article is "Very promostional (sic) sounding", itself sounds rather non-NPOV, unless clear examples of such abuses are cited. Even then, such issues can be addressed with an appropriate NPOV-needed template; and again not grounds for deletion. Place all the "improvement templates" as would seem appropriate into the main article, and then take it to the article's talk page with examples of violations and discussions, and alert the editors, who contributed significantly in the past to the creation of the article, to improve it. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is not yet independent & reliable secondary source to make the subject notable for an article. — Indon (reply) — 08:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Pool & Spa News? It is an industry rag, but neutral with respect to Bullfrog. See citations in article, and others. Thompson-Gale InfoTrac Professional Collection pulls up 14 references since 2002, mostly short news blurbs. --Bejnar 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have looked at them thanks. I stroke my delete vote but keep neutral on this debate. I still see the article in this current state as a WP:SPAM but there are secondary sources about the subject. Thus it passes the primary criterion of WP:CORP but it surely needs expansion and more widely coverage sources (not only award & recognition stories). How about customer reviews? independent comparison with other products? etc. — Indon (reply) — 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. Added reliable secondary source to make the subject notable for an article. Included U.S Patent - #s Claybnorman 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... where are the references? I wanted to put ((reflist)) template there but there are other kind of unusual references in the References section. Please read WP:CITE. — Indon (reply) — 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patent numbers are irrelevant and not reliable sources. I fixed the references. Phony Saint 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did patents become unreliable? They are one of the most reliable sources, along with court documents. No one would risk invalidating a patent by having it contain a falsehood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, a patent is a primary source, and it is not independent. Having a patent is not notable; having a patent that somebody else writes about is. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year become a minor award? It runs in 35 countries. Previous Entrepreneur Of The Year winners include Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com, Pierre Omidyar of eBay, Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Howard Schultz of Starbucks, Catherine L. Hughes and Alfred Liggins of Radio One, and Jim McCann of 1-800-Flowers.com.Claybnorman 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an impressive list Claybnorman. Is that cited in the reference section? tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can fix it up. - 2-16 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per as all above R_Orange 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ObiterDicta. Article is still promotional, and despite some industry awards, doesn't seem to have attracted enough objective, secondary sources for a balanced article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dartung, it seems to me that if an object is relevant enough to receive respected industry awards, it is more than relevant to be included in wikipedia. If inventions, works or art, distinguished businesses, or other notable topics such as this are not included on wikipedia, this project as a whole will be incomplete. tatwood (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I always thought that Wikipedia was not a listing of companies – phone numbers –ect. But an encyclopedia of noteworthy people, companies, situations, locations, objects and such. How is this company noteworthy? Shoessss 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article isn't perfect, it is well referenced, and that alone is enough, in my opinion. ¿SFGiДnts!☺ ☻ 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I would let it remain while some work is done on it. The Ernst award is certainly notable although its given to the CEO not the company. Other awards suggest that it is a fast growing company. There is some work to be done but I would keep it. JodyB talk 00:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPool & Spa News may not be the greatest magazine, but they have had a six page article (9 January 2006) with Bullfrog Int'l in the lead, in addition to a dozen minor news blurbs about Bullfrog since a 12 July 2002 article about their new factory in Bluffdale, Utah. --Bejnar 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it should be noted that “Pool & Spa News” is a trade magazine that will publish any articles by any advertiser. Do not believe this is a legitimate source. Shoessss 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to judge sources by where sources are expected to be found. Trade magazines do not have the high reliability of peer-reviewed journals, yet they are where articles about commercial organizations are published. But in any case the dissection of sources is not necessary here, for the Ernst & Young award is sufficient. DGG 01:49, 9 May 2007 (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.