Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insteon (company)


 * 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 merge to Insteon. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Insteon (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are company blogs, patents, aquisitions, company documents, partnership and press-releases. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14.  scope_creep Talk  00:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Insteon. All the non-corporate-history information here is already elsewhere in that article. &#x2130; mi1y&#x29fc;T&middot;C&#x29fd; 02:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

JRed176 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge WesSirius (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Examination of the references:
 * Ref 1 Trademark. Non-rs.
 * Ref 2 Use of the device to control home. Fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a manual, although it does verifiy the products were popular in the hobbyist, DIY and craft folk.
 * Ref 3 404. Unable to locate.
 * Ref 4 News about it closing down. Valid source.
 * Ref 5 New about it being up. Valid source.
 * Ref 6 Blog ref. Non-RS.
 * Ref 7 Patents. Non-RS.
 * Ref 8 [www.ocbj.com/news/2015/jan/06/insteon-partners-nest/] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as press-release.
 * Ref 9 Seems to be manual, describing the product. Product review.
 * Ref 10 [www.insteon.net/aboutInsteon.html] Primary. Non-RS.
 * Ref 11 Passing mention.
 * Ref 12 Press-release.
 * Ref 13 Product review.
 * Ref 14 Product review.

Of the 14 refs, 2 product reviews, 2 press-releases, 4 Non-rs, 1 manual, 1 passing mention, 1 404, 1 WP:NOT fail and 2 secondary refs. No indication of being notable due to lack of coverage.  scope_creep Talk  11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd pose that the strongest claim to notability here is that it was down for two months, leaving its few customers stranded, but this ends up only in Ars Technica and was not carried in any newspapers per ProQuest, indicating that few were concerned.  Many, many product reviews exist, but nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH.  FalconK (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2023 (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.