Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carson Optical


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Carson Optical

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:ROUTINE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia has a big shelf and I'm sure some person each month will be more informed by having this article at their disposal. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The only two contributions I place any weight on, per WP:DELPRO, are the last two - which are split and present contrasting views about the sourcing. Relisting for further policy-based input.
 * Keep, the article has useful information about the company.   Comfr (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe more sources should be found as it will be helpful for this discussion.--Chartwind (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails CORDEPTH and ORGCRIT. Coverage is routine and trivial. One source is devoted to touting the company's binoculars and hardly mentions the company. There is one WSJ article that has some info that would be helpful towards notability, but that is not enough. This NYT article  doesn't even mention the company. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above, this Tampa Bay Times article, and the Long Island Business News article already cited establish notability. I believe this passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep reluctantly. Passes GNG. – Broccoli &#38; Coffee  (Oh hai) 03:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (I ivoted above). Unfortunately the Long Island Business News source, cited above, consists of only the title of the article, Carson Optical expanding in Ronkonkoma, and only one line passing mention "The Long Island-based optics supplier envisions the future with a 50,000-square-foot property deal." This is not significant or in-depth coverage.


 * However, the Tampa Bay Times article mentioned above seems to be significant coverage. So, at most there are two sources that sufficiently cover this topic, including the Wall Street Journal article mentioned above.


 * I am not sure that satisfies the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for WP:ORGCRIT or WP:SIRS or GNG. I like to have three acceptable independent reliable sources for indicating notability. I'll do more searching and see what I can find. It seems like a good company and high quality operation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, especially ones like the this Tampa Bay Times article which relies on an interview, and the interview and quotations in the Long Island Business News article as there's no "Independent Content" *about the company* in those and they fail ORGIND. It isn't about the quantity of references but the quality, so adding references about, say, a review of a product where the author claims to have done some research (but actually just cut and paste from the company website) fails WP:CORPDEPTH plus the fact the topic is the company, not the product. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with HighKing about the Tampa Bay Times article. I took a second look at it and it is not significant independent coverage. It has some cherry picked instances about the owners' actions. It does seem this was garnered from an interview replete with at least one quote from one of the owners. It is not original and independent analysis.


 * The company would have more coverage if it was involved in a controversy. The only source that I can see that fits the bill for "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" is the WSJ article mentioned above.


 * And multiple sources are required. The other sources in the article and here are not sufficient for passing CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Also, so far I have been unable to locate acceptable sources that could denote notability.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The WSJ article only has a small proportion of the overall text relative to the topic company and it is clear that it is based on an interview with the president of the company and a tour of the company. There are factual statements such as the history and how the firm has evolved beyond importing and the number of patents but there are mostly boilerplate statements which appear in most articles and that information can be found on the company website. There's really nothing here that indicates there is any "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" when you go through it. It is clear that the source of all the information/data is the company or their executives.  HighKing++ 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for pointing this out. I have to agree with Highking on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per HighKing. Fails NCORP big time. Neither of the WSJ articles offers more than trivial mention on the subject. The NYT article (For a Boat or the Ball Game, Flexible Binoculars) does not even mention Carson Optical only Richard Cameron, president, "Copitar", the "Japanese optics manufacturer" and "Cameron International of Huntington, L.I.", that "imports electronic binoculars". This is the first three I randomly checked and the last one appears to only be citation overkill. The American Hunter source is a Review: Carson RD-826 with only one paragraph about the company and owner. The company info consists: "that Carson Optical was started in 1990". That is zero for 4. The Indoor Outdoor source offers infor that Carson Optical Expands HQ. This is far from in-depth sourcing on the company just about the expansion. The Bloomberg source offers one paragraph. The Long Island Business News is behind a paywall but is titled Carson Optical expanding in Ronkonkoma'' so both the last two are concerning the company expansion and are press-release type sources. I do not propose to offer that the company does not exist. I own a Carson PO-55 MiniBrite Pocket Magnifier. Notability means more than passing mentions and press releases (routine coverage) showing that a company exists. "Keep" comments because "Wikipedia has a big shelf" or "the article has useful information about the company" are really just "I like it". --  Otr500 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.