Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oton


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non notable, promotional/advertorial-style wikipedia entry, from a company with a history of delusions of grandeur, who has previously failed to deliver a similar product, has ginned up virtually no third-party coverage except PR's and Interviews, launched a deceptive fundraising campaign by using a page similarly themed to a Kickstarter one (while not actually being on Kickstarter), and of which there is no reason to believe they have either the financing or capability to deliver. Wikipedia is not for advertising. I propose a reversion of the article back to its original incarnation, a redirect to Oton,_Iloilo. Kai445 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete current ad-like drivel. This thing doesn't exist yet and likely will never exist. The article has not demonstrated that the thing is notable, even if it never ends up existing, so that option is out as well. No prejudice against recreating it if it ever comes out. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My support of deletion was not based on the ad-like nature of the article, but rather the lack of demonstration of notability, which is still the case in the current form. Again, no prejudice against recreating if the thing ever comes out AND demonstrates notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like an advert and notability is dubious. Ducknish (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasoning above. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 20:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasoning above as well. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still Delete, even after G&C's comments; still not notable. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember that a similarly named article called the OTON X Console was deleted as a G11 last December. Assuming, that the other article was for the same product it may be a good idea for someone who can look at the old deleted article to see if this article is similar enough that one to be deleted under that criteria as well.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of substantial, reliable, independent source text about this subject. -- Jayron  32  02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment again. Substantial, reliable, independent source text has not materialized.  My comments remain unchanged.  -- Jayron  32  00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know the notation is rather weak, fair enough, hands up. but given what i had to work with on this page i don't think i did that badly! i asked for help from the user who has now instigated putting up a AfD notice but he seems more concerned with a personal crusade against the company. Tony flaxman (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that this user made this edit which removed most of the AFD proporsal and some of Axem Titanium's response. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: This user also has admitted he was "was asked to produce the Wikipage for (the company)", on the Oton talk page. Also that was a pretty ballsy edit. And for fun, you might want to check if his IP is from the Anniston, Alabama area, where the creator of the alleged device hails from. -Kai445 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. If and when the product is released, it may become notable enough for an article. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. WP:GNG is not met. (Additionally, as mentioned in nom, company has a history of non-notable vaporware... Sergecross73   msg me   12:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I did see a link to a Kotaku article in there -- is that not reliable? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - That source is useable, yes, but none of the rest of the 13 in the article are. Sergecross73   msg me   14:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Kotaku article is sceptical about the product: "Is Oton just another Phantom, or is there something tangible to its claims?", "As of writing, the project has one backer, who has supplied $US49", "If EnGeniux has been working on the tech for three years, surely it can muster up more than a video showing off the games of others?" Kotaku is a reputable source, but is not evidence for the product's existence, let alone notability. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - per WP:ADMASQ - an advertisement masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC); and WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON.--ukexpat (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ADMASQ PianoDan (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After G&C's edits, this still reads like an add - I reiterate my "Delete." PianoDan (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

*Can we get a sock check? Can an admin check to see if G&C / Arthur Scroggins and Tony Flaxman all hail from the same area or if they've ever shared an IP? Especially with G&C's history with the previous EVO articles, either this user really likes obscure consoles, or they may otherwise have some connection to the Alabama based company Envizions. Seems suspicious. Maybe nothing. Probably me being paranoid. -Kai445 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an egregious inconcordance with the papate! I would recommend re-reading Nehemiah 10:17 before you get yourselves extrudificated. -- Lord  Bromblemore  17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert. The article was good and backed up by sources, but then two users (ARTHUR SCROGGINS and Tony flaxman) completely changed the article, adding lots of information and others which are not notable enough or not sourced. Also it is strongly represented as an advert. I believe this article should be reverted back to the revision edited by Wavelength at 22:14, 18 February 2013, and add any bits edited by these two users which are notable enough. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. I've found a perfect solution. I will revert all the changes made by these two, because it's their heavy changes that have turned it into a bad article and made this a candidate for deletion. I believe before all these changes, there was no problem at all. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notice: I've finished reverting the article and adding the sourced bits in the article. I think it's okay now and does not need a deletion anymore. Still any problems? Let me know. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Both versions are equally bad. The sources are terrible in either version. It certainly doesn't change my !vote. Sergecross73   msg me   23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I didn't notice that the info in the Motherboard section was also bad, and the ad-like info in the Design section. I've removed them. I believe it's okay now, right? --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still Delete. The time to establish notability is once it exists and is in the shops. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So the PlayStation 4 isn't notable then? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but the PS4 isn't being started up by a kickstarter by someone with a history of vapor ware either... Sergecross73   msg me   13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even kickstarter, a kickstarter-themed page that whose layout was stolen from another company altogether, and they "raised" like $400-ish dollars. I still think the EVO 2 content should be deleted from the EVO page, since it is also non-notable and now officially cancelled. -Kai445 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ADMASQ and WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, look at the second changes I've done. I believe it's now spam-free. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The blatant promo stuff may have even removed, but the fact that this article exists without proper coverage inherently gives the vibe that its here to create coverage rather than because its received coverage. Sergecross73   msg me   01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't be advertising vaporware.  It is slightly better after G&C's edits (thanks) but is still non-notable until it actually comes out.  (Which, as the nominator notes, is unlikely to happen - and most of the coverage is about just how unlikely that is.) –  SJ  +  01:54, 24 March 2013 (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.