Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart doorbell


 * 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 - Although the sources were refuted the discussion pretty much ended straight after that, Overall consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Smart doorbell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was Speedy Deleted on 2 December 2016 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Smart objects) at 17:29. Just two hours later, at 19:34,  created it again. It is still a duplicate of the existing article, and its re-creation is disruptive. Gronk Oz (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. No notability found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC).
 * As noted below, this claim is false. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable. For example, see:
 * The 5 Best Smart Locks and Doorbells For Your Home
 * Gate is a smart lock with an integrated video doorbell
 * This smart doorbell doesn't have a security camera
 * Ring Smart Doorbell review
 * Research of an envisoned smart doorbell
 * Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above sources are a classical example of churnalism generated by a PR release. Purely promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC).
 * That's a classic example of not actually reading the evidence. Source #5, for example, is a paper from a conference; not churnalism at all. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I fail to see how is this not notable. The topic is widely covered in the news, as well as in books and even architecture journals (per Google Scholar). This topic deserve an article of its own. --Virtualerian (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is notable and there are many sources that talk about it (as listed above). --  Dane talk  02:48, 13 December 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.