Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart doorbell

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 keep - Although the sources were refuted the discussion pretty much ended straight after that, Overall consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smart doorbell

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

This article was Speedy Deleted on 2 December 2016 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Smart objects) at 17:29. Just two hours later, at 19:34, Virtualerian created it again. It is still a duplicate of the existing article, and its re-creation is disruptive. Gronk Oz (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No notability found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As noted below, this claim is false. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see:

Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are a classical example of churnalism generated by a PR release. Purely promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That's a classic example of not actually reading the evidence. Source #5, for example, is a paper from a conference; not churnalism at all. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how is this not notable. The topic is widely covered in the news, as well as in books and even architecture journals (per Google Scholar). This topic deserve an article of its own. --Virtualerian (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable and there are many sources that talk about it (as listed above). -- Dane ^talk 02:48, 13 December 2016 (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.