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. NA1K is usually pretty on the ball with finding sources to rescue articles, and even he's struggling. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpotCam[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources provided are not independent and a search turned up no independent sources discussing the company per se. -- Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can easily find lots of major IT media coverage about this company and its product and service. I edited the page to include more reference from independent sources so this subject could be more creditable. This article provides useful and quick information for people who are trying to learn more about this company/product. Zachery neeb (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachery the sources you added were about the company's products, not the company per se. What sources are you aware of, about the company itself? Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I got your point, added company information source in the article. Zachery neeb (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the kind of sources that "count". Crunchbase is a wiki and not reliable, and the other was a directory entry, most likely provided by the company. To meet notability there needs to multiple independent sources with substantial discussion of the company -- see WP:Golden rule which summarizes the policy WP:NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When yous search SpotCam you see lots of independent and credible source talking about the product and usually in the article it mentions about the company, so to me from notability perspective, the company and its solution is notable, just when media or independent source writing article about something new or cool, they more focus about the product instead of company, that's also why this subject worth to be here because when people want to learn something about the company they can see it here instead of going through all different articles or websites.118.168.96.152 (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what matters. The company has to meet GNG to have an article, which means there must be several independent sources with substantial discussion about the company, or there can be no WP article at this time. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I frankly consider all of this speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep and convert the article to be based upon its primary product line, the SpotCam. Below are examples of significant coverage. Source searches are not providing enough content about the company, but its products are notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete -- the above coverage in the product are mostly trivial; this is still "product catalog" material and insufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert and keep I've edited the article to be an entry about SpotCam product, which should qualify for notability with those sources provided as reference.Zachery neeb (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- even with the change, this is still an article on a non-notable subject and overly promotional, such as:

The SpotCam HD is a fixed type indoor Wi-Fi cloud camera
The SpotCam HD Pro is a fixed type indoor/outdoor Wi-Fi cloud camera with weatherproof feature
The SpotCam HD Eva is a fixed type indoor Wi-Fi cloud camera with pan/tilt capability

The sources added at the AfD do not amount to SIGCOV to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is now an article about a product; nothing in the article suggest that the article has revolutionized the business or has the potential to do so. This is not Gutenberg's printing press. In 2-3 years the product will be off the market, replaced by other products. Thuresson (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep this is just a webcam with the kind of reviews you expect to see about a new iteration of a gadget. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources presented above amount to significant coverage in this field (except perhaps the one labelled "Forbes", which I can't evaluate because I can't find the actual page among the maze of ads and redirects). Delete. —Cryptic 14:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.