Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical Illusions


 * 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. Strong consensus in favour of keep Philg88 ♦talk 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Technical Illusions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Its first product is still under development.  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: This was one of the top tech kickstarters ever, raising over $1 million, which was 263% of its goal [see all-time tech kickstarters here] and has been widely reported on by Bloomberg Businessweek, Engadget, TheVerge, TomsHardware, GizMag, and a number of foreign outlets. It is also notable by dint of its founders, Jeri Ellsworth and Rick Johnson both notable veterans of the industry. 47.18.34.63 (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep One of the worst AfD nominations I've seen, made all the more surprising by the editor that nominated it. There is no policy-related problem with the article - why is it even here? In fact, it is very well researched and finely crafted. I would respectfully request that this nomination be withdrawn as soon as possible. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Immediate and Speedy and Permanent Keep Whoever proposed the deletion of the article has not performed due dilligence to assure reasons for article to be deleted. Technical Illusions is a licensed Washington state business per Washington State Department of Licensing database. Technical Illusions was created by founders Jeri Ellsworth, chip designer responsible for designing the Commodore 64 30 games in 1 Direct to TV joystick, the CommodoreOne (later to be named "C-One Reconfigurable computer".... a simple Google search and due diligence research will clearly indicate the validity of source such as webpages from http://www.c64upgra.de/ and existing Wikipedia pages about Jeri Ellsworth. However, this entry isn't about Jeri Ellsworth directly but about the company "Technical Illusions" and a summary description of products being developed and in the future, produced by Technical Illusions. Currently, their first product line is under development with specifications not yet released to Kickstarter backers. However, products indicated may in the future have more detailed wikipedia pages in more detailed discussion of the products like castAR glasses as maybe appropriate for viewers of Wikipedia articles/pages. Both founders have credible and recognized industry experience in hardware and software development.It is therefore my recommendation that the article to be kept and in time amended as more information becomes available for the intellectual and informational interests of Wikipedia readers as well as retain reasonable quality of information which shall be fair. Technical Illusions is a new start-up company which will become a prominent market player in the market & research sectors regarding augmented reality and virtual reality. --- This entry has been entered by Richard Balkins of Wavestar Interactive ( a kickstarter backer of castAR AR/VR glasses and supporter and to extent an independent software developer for Technical Illusions products under development. Time/Date Stamp: August 24, 2014 at 10:49PM U.S. Pacific Coast time via my Wikipedia account. RickAstoria (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of the article, I want to add that it's disappointing to see that an administrator who has been around for so many years decided to nominate this article, only two months after the article has been accepted, on the sole ground that the company's product is still under development. I thought the company warranted its own article given its successful Kickstarter and founders, and significant third-party coverage. I tried to make everything in the article verifiable and used reliable sources. There's no conflict of interest: I have nothing to do with the company, in fact didn't even back their Kickstarter project. After many years of trying to improve Wikipedia from various IP addresses, I must admit that the ease with which articles are being nominated for deletion from Wikipedia still surprises and demotivates me. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there a policy-based reason for the requested deletion? I am not seeing one in the nom. Per WP:ORG the standard of notability would seem to be met, because of the existence of independent sources. If there is some other basis for deletion though, perhaps the nominator could provide it? In the long run, if the company never creates a product, perhaps this article should be merged into the Jeri Ellsworth article, but in the meantime it seems to be adequately sourced. --Elonka 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Marginally notable tech company. After reading all of the linked sources included within the article, I believe that the subject probably satisfies the specific notability guideline for companies per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but contrary to some of the outraged "keep" comments above, it's a relatively close call.  Why?  Because most of the linked sources are about the subject company's product(s), not primarily or even significantly about the company itself.  This is an article about the subject company, not its product(s); therefore, I am looking for significant (i.e., not trivial, not WP:ROUTINE, not incidental) coverage of the company, its officers, its financial backers, its finances, its history, its long-term prospects, etc., and not solely about its product(s).  If the product is notable, then perhaps the product should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but the subject company must be notable in its own right per our notability guidelines.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment To answer some of the objections above, in no particular order: (1) A successful kickstarter means that a company has money to try to do something significant--a reference reporting it id a routine financial announcement, not a source for notability.  (2) The notability of a firm consists of producing notable products, as reflected by the sources, or otherwise doing something that is worth being covered.   The simplest phrase for the situation, a very frequent one for attempts at WP articles,  seems to be "not yet notable". (3)  The standard of notability is not having independent sources, the standard is having substantial i=coverage in reliable independent sources. Substantial coverage has to be about something more than mere existence. I don't think any of the sources provide it, because there's nothing substantial to cover at this point. (4)  We have been in the habit recently in accepting articles of firms that have done no more than raise money  --I think the policy based reason for rejecting them, is NOT DIRECTORY, which is the basic policy which is implemented by the notability guideline.  (5) That the founders are notable for something else, doesn't mean they are notable for this. That they have been successful for devleoping something else, does not imply that   everything they do will be equally notable or successful.  (6) When a company has made a single notable product, there is a choice between making an article on the firm or the product. People have sometimes tried to do both, and that is usually premature.  For the analagous case of authors, I usually argue for writing the article on the author, not the book, because if one book is successful the author usually goes on to write others. I don't think this is usually the case with products--a single success seems to be often the case, no matter how large the success is. For products, it will often happen that the product is much better known than the company, and it is also often easier to write an article about the product, and easier to demonstrate the notability though such things as product reviews. I therefore agree with 's suggestion that rather than this article, an article about the product should be the direction pursued. (7) I also agree  with the view by  that if they never do create a successful product, the place to mention this endeavor is onin the article on the principal of the firm, when there is   a single predominant individual.. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You write "I therefore agree with Dirtlawyer's suggestion that rather than this article, an article about the product should be the direction pursued." but I don't think Dirtlawyer1's statement was in a "rather than [...] should" fashion. An article about just the unreleased product might survive, but forwarding castAR to a section of this article allows visitors to also read up on the company's history, location and company-related activities (e.g. establishing the Immersive Technology Alliance). This is not a firm that has "done no more than raise money", because their prototype won Educator's and Editor's Choice ribbons at the 2013 Bay Area Maker Faire, and was well-received by, for example, Tested.com. This may not become a "single success" for the company, given Ellsworth's previous successes with the C64 Direct-to-TV and C-One products; time will tell. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we follow WP:CORP -- which says "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" -- it would appear the subject more than meets notability standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ". . . subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Most of the sources presently included in the article are primarily about the subject company's new product(s), and only incidentally mention the company itself.  That falls under trivial or WP:ROUTINE coverage, and not significant coverage.  Please read my previous comment above, and WP:AGF regarding the nominator.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The company's product currently defines the company, which is still relatively new. WP:AGF is not an issue here. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ansh666 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be notable judging by the references. Op47 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator is entitled to make a mistake, we all do and this is the purpose of having a discussion. I am surprised that given that this nomination has no support that the original error has been compounded by a re-list. Op47 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment (I'm the editor that originally created the article.) As Dirtlawyer1 wrote, it is a close call. The nominator did not make an outright error. The company itself - not its product in development - needs significant, non-incidental coverage in secondary sources. There is clearly a problem with the nomination though; I will explain what it is in another comment that I'll be adding below shortly. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a problem with DGG's goodfaith nomination. DGG's nomination text is just "Its first product is still under development." without internal links to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or any other explanation. It has been steering this AfD discussion in the wrong direction pretty much from the start. Especially if an article is not a poorly-researched stub, the nominator should immediately invest time into clearly explaining why an article should be deleted. A desire to make a rigorous change that results in the loss of knowledge from Wikipedia deserves such an investment. The statement "Its first product is still under development." is just factual, nobody refutes it, but the statement is not an argument in and of itself. This is part of what I meant when I wrote about the "ease with which articles are being nominated" in my first comment on this page. DGG later explained his reasoning in more detail, but I'm afraid the emotional atmosphere created by his first one-liner remained. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (I had not yet added a recommendation.) It's a close call, but notable for its successful Kickstarter, activities, well-known founders, (Valve) history, well-received and awarded prototype, and likelyhood of growth given Ellsworth's previous successes. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 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.