Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LifeSource Water Systems


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

LifeSource Water Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 12:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 12:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Hi, I'm a paid editor for LifeSource, which I've disclosed on the article's talk page. I usually avoid paid editing because the articles in question are often too obscure for inclusion, but I took interest in this one because I felt that it was sufficiently notable and just in need of some cleanup. Namely, it's an 80 employee company with 11 physical locations in 5 different states and has a 33 year history and had a revenue of $15M in 2016, which puts it above many existing small business articles. Also, looking at this press release, they seem to have started a sizable project recently in Peru. I think that the article's biggest issue right now is its low number of secondary sources, but that may in part be due to the company's existence before the days of the Internet, and per WP:NPOSSIBLE, I think it should be given the benefit of the doubt there. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 22:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry,, but I don't see the notability here. That it has existed for so long without receiving significant coverage suggests that the company is not notable. Nothing wrong with that, most companies aren't, but it makes it unsuitable for the encyclopedia. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, again sorry, but simply not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:37, 30 September 2017 (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.