Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London opera Glass Company


 * 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. I'm sorry Jonathan but despite your work on this article, the consensus is still to delete Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

London opera Glass Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article reads like an advertisement or is in a promotional tone (violating WP:NOTADVERTISING), and also contains original research and many unsourced statements. The company may be notable but most of the statements in the article cannot be verified. jfd34 ( talk ) 10:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep — the company is notable and I have done a complete rewrite of the article with references, although more could be added. Please don't delete now! :) — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: is not significant coverage and  is written by a company about them receiving money from this company which is not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The Theatres Trust is not a company, it is a charitable trust. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: more references now. The glasses are used at many notable theatres and productions, and this is the leading UK company in the field. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions* 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an admittedly rather interesting little article, and I don't like expressing a delete opinion, but the sourcing supplied is either plainly insignificant coverage, or the result of PR, or primary sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete ‣ No coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. I looked fairly hard, too - you would think that a century-old company would be mentioned in more places, but even for example in this book, Spectacles and Other Vision Aids: A History and Guide to Collecting, it isn't mentioned, even though several other London-based manufacturers of opera glasses are. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 19:43, 29 May 2012 (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.