Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crestron Electronics


 * 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 speedy deleted by per WP:G11. North America1000 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Crestron Electronics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While acknowledging Crestron's importance in their field, we all should know importance is not the determining factor for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is. The applicable notability guideline is CORP, and after BASIC, I don't see it for this company. The Forbes story already on the article appears to be all there is for this company. There were 2 very similar (leading to the conclusion that they came from a press release) articles in Dallas area media about an expansion made into that area, and a few namechecks in other reliable sources. Other than that, no mention outside of trade publications. Trade publications tend to be not independent, as they are usually generated from press releases. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in Forbes and in "Crestron fully automates homes and offices" from Globes are just some of the examples of the specific coverage in reliable and verifiable mainstream media sources from around the world about the company establishing notability. It's disappointing that the nominator arrogates the authority to simply dismiss trade publications, the type of media most likely to be writing about a niche technology company. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: The article discussed here is a red llnk showing the following . It also shows that this article was  restored on 16:08, 22 August 2016 as a result of  WP:REFUND by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and before that on 09:40, 5 January 2016 DGG deleted it after it was wp:PROD ed.
 * Why did you delete this article 3 days after it was listed here and after it received a Keep vote? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * Most of the page was promotional drivel, but it may have made a valid stub after de-spamming. I am generally fairly strict with G11 deletions (and inferentially on refusing to restore PRODs citing G11 as well), far more so than DGG. I see that DGG's second deletion occurred after tagged the page for deletion under G11 with the edit summary Basically a sales pitch, the Keep vote is non-applicable here as this is basically WP:TNT material, consisting only of PR information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tagged it because it was still too advert-like (I'm not confident it would've been a confident trim) regardless of a Keep vote. Also, I had in fact noticed the links above but they were simply trivial (the 1 URL is simply above the company's services), because if needed, this can be restarted. I always trust DGG with deleting as he always makes good choices. The nomination itself noted how the article was consisting of PR. SwisterTwister   talk  17:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Close? - as this is a matter for deletion review now. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2016 (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.