Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecobee

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecobee

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

A company that is of insufficient notability to warrant an article. There are refs and the company has won awards but that is not enough. We should use the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to show that this company is getting undue commercial advantage by having a Wikipedia article. I am also suspicious of the editor (may be a WP:SPA?) since creating this article is the sole edit that she/he has carried out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Morefoolhim 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments. I've removed the self-published source. The company is mentioned in a New York Times article. This combined with the other sources seems to me to establish some notability. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Stevefromcanada (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD[reply]

Delete I can't find any revenue data, but this company appears to be too small to warrant a page at this time. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company received 6.73 million dollars from the Ontario Emerging Technologies Fund in 2010. The company does not publish sales figures but claims to have sold "tens of thousands" of thermostats. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Stevefromcanada (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am an employee of the company in question. I chose to write the article on my own initiative as I believe the company warrants it. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your disclosure. It is appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article sourcing is poor, but that's more to do with an editor new to Wikipedia than there being a lack of available reliable sources in which to establish notability. It's a bit tough going through the sarch results as it appears teh company has been quite prolific with its press releases. However, I did find coverage in Ars Technica, Daily Commercial News, Winnipeg Free Press, Globe and Mail, and PC magazine using google news. Some of teh coverage is less significant than others, but taken as awhole, I am satisfied that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Globe & Mail article and the PC magazine article are the most significant, and they merely give it a paragraph in a list of similar devices. Full reviews show notability , but these are not full reviews. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Ars Technica and Winnipeg Free Press feature the ecobee as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The product has received enough coverage that it's borderline notable, and the company and the product cannot really be separated at this time. --Michig (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd have thought the awards would make this company notable. 1292simon (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alan Liefting is (mis)using the wp:AfD process here to imply the article's creator is an SPA. This has also happened here.

Is this in the best interests of Wikipedia? Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? Why am I the only person complaining? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the edit history and from the comments above that it was created by an SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alan. Special:Contributions/Stevefromcanada sure looks like a SPA to me. 1292simon (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting,@1292simon If this article's creator looks like an SPA to you shortly after joining Wikipedia and making his first edits (and having to deal with a deletion 2 days later), then all I can say is I must have been lucky to escape this kind of "welcome" when I first joined wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Awards and coverage make it notable. And I am sorry to the article creator that you got dragged into this deletion process; it is deeply unpleasant to many editors and especially to new editors to have legalistic AFD proceedings started, rather than milder discussion and suggestions at the talk page of an article. --do ncr am 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2012 (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.