Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightline Interactive

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brightline Interactive

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

Non-notable company, plus this page is written like an advert. Not good enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep – This article looks very notable to me. It's a successful company with VERY NOTABLE clients. People just apparently like to delete articles on notable things that THEY DON'T LIKE. (Personal attack removed) 236benderavenue (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from personal attacks on other editors whose opinion you don't agree with. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep – What the above user said. It's notable enough to have clients with deep pockets like the Department of Defense, its services must be very good, etc. I also don't agree it's written like an advert. It looks neutral to me – the article neither endorses not slams the company, it just lays out the facts. CarmineFalconeCF (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/response to the above two new editors: Every business enterprise has multiple suppliers and clients; notability is not inherited from a list of other firms. What is needed here is evidence that this firm itself is notable. AllyD (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Highbeam searches brings up quite a number of items of coverage for Brightline Interactive or iTV, including some awards, but it appears to be a distinct company from that which is the subject of this article. AllyD (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP; [1], many passing mentions and press releases, but not enough sourcing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Esquivalience ^t 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: the company is very notable among the business community, and is successful financially. I think this earns it a Wikipedia page. Daredevil836 (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing and although News found a plethora, more than half of the links are press releases. A NYTimes article here says American Express was a client in which Brightline created a TV channel but that's not exactly significant and Books found one result. Not to improve the article's current state. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think the NY Times piece concerns the other similarly named firm I mentioned above[2] rather than this one, and similar probably for the links from the Google search. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I checked again, and still find a lack of reliable 3rd party coverage of this firm (i.e. the one making digital advertising installations rather than the interactive TV firm). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 1 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.