Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathometer (2nd nomination)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Breathometer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources link to product reviews and fundraising reports. Not notable by any means. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also include that the previous AfD referenced these sources to make it notable. For instance the PC Mag article is a quasi product review on a product that was still being crowdsourced at the time. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources satisfy notability in that they are significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. They go beyond blogs and press releases and the manufacturer's website, which are all we get for some spamvertisement- type articles which should, in fact,be deleted as nonnotable.. It was an innovative product, in that it was the first miniature breathalyzer which could be plugged into a smartphone with an app to test for alcohol level, with other features such as calling a cab to the user's location The references which lead to a "Keep" in the previous AFD should not be dismissed on the grounds that they are mere product reviews. What's wrong with product reviews? Nor should coverage of its funding be dismissed. It is coverage. The sources included CBS news and PCMag. Additionally, the LA Times had a long article or review: . One could have also asked if it fails WP:NOTNEWS, since in the previous AFD all the stories amounted to a splash of news coverage over a couple of weeks in March-April 2013. In fact, there is continuing coverage, with KRON-TV in December 2013:  and Popular Mechanics, as linked from the Sacramento Bee January 2014:. News editors of reputable mainstream media find it to be worth noting in detail, and it is thus notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. If the tone of the article sounds promotional, then it needs editing, not deleting.Edison (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. All it takes to establish notability is multiple reliable independent secondary sources focusing on the subject.  I'm satisfied that the Techcrunch and CBS articles clear that hurdle and saw no reason to look further.  Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable and passes WP:GNG. Source examples:
 * CBS News
 * Los Angeles Times
 * PC Magazine
 * The Wall Street Journal (newsblog)
 * The Wall Street Journal (newsblog)
 * Tech Crunch
 * Tech Crunch
 * KRON News
 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (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.