Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRENDnet

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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDnet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating for deletion for failing to meet WP:NCORP; and passing mentions media coverage Villkomoses (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of tech reviews to be found about their products in RS. The one source in the article about the FTC enforcement helps, as does this one [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reviews are about the products, not the company I guess 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the one source you provided is not a reliable one 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Verge (cite) and CNET (cite) provide significant coverage. I suspect that a proper WP: BEFORE was not conducted before this nomination was made. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no significant coverage found, explained below in my delete vote 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: [2], [3], [4] These mentioned above sources are not reliable as they do not provide in-depth coverage of the company or address the topic with the necessary depth. All the sources are event-based and focus on a one single event about some claims settlement. I also cannot not find any additional reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the company. --2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this, as current sources is more about the event of the "security leak" that the company faced and just brief mentions about the company itself. the article is supposed to highlight the company and not about what the issues they have faced see In re TRENDnet, Inc. which is more focused appropriately on what the citations here are pertaining to. If more RS can be found where it is more about the company being discussed. (e.g. History, achievements, contributions..) then this maybe considered keeps otherwise delete or return to drafts? Villkomoses (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear WP:NCORP pass.

Wyatt, Edward (2013-09-05). "F.T.C. Says Webcam's Flaw Put Users' Lives on Display". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-23.

This is precisely one of the examples from WP:SUBSTANTIAL: A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product. There's also a lot of product coverage in ProQuest and Google Books. Jfire (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard stub for a manufacturer of soho devices with proper sourcing; expansion candidate more than for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (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.