Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstaLoad

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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InstaLoad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Back in 2010, Microsoft sent out a press release about some vaporware,[1] and (surprise!) Gizmag and Wired parroted the PR copy.[2][3] What happened next was... absolutely nothing.

WP:TOOSOON explains why we don't run out and make stubs every time somebody announces a new thing they very much hope to do, but have not in fact done yet. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep:*Neutral:Delete: nom reasoning seems reasonable unless someone comes up with improvements.10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2019 October 22 (UTC)

(Changed to neutral due to discussions at 28 October below) ... Microsoft are still (rightly or wrongly) advertising the licensing of the product [4] and Amazon cited it from a patent, albeit very minor. [5] and the links URLs are available on Wayback.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing MPD passing mention for MPD in designWorld Jan 2016 p 397. I'd also note [6] and [7]. Thats possibly not quite enough really for a keep. but I think there is some sign of implementation and some sign of uniqueness. Coin cell batteries are a likely target as bigger stuff is usually physically made Djm-leighpark/idiot proof against incorrect insertion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the topic accrued some speculative coverage in 2010, but a search for sources by date do not reaveal any sources published post 2010, which indicates to me the subject fails WP:NCORP (which also covers company products.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: For a while, I could not determine what to advise here. Wikipedia is not a collector of bad ideas, but this one is quite the opposite. It is a great idea. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that "great" is subjective. What exactly is great here? Well... it is a "great idea" in that it is an "idea with the potential to have impact". But ten years has passed and it did not have an actual impact. I tried looking for more details on it too. It seems its Channel 9 video has been taken down. Only the video's description page remains. Looks like it is just another idea that never took off. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dennis (product and gng) — Ched (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Changing to Keep Per Cunard's input. Barca (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Dennis Bratland: I wouldn't say nothing happened. I did find one peer reviewed journal article from 2012 which indicated that it is being used in the medical technology sector: "Designing a more patient-centric battery holder.(Emphasis On Batteries)"; Blaha, Tom, Medical Design Technology, Sept, 2012, Vol.16(7), p.16(2). This moves it towards a keep, but not sure if this quite meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They actually shipped a product that uses it? What's it called? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: According to the article, Memory Protection Devices makes and sells them under a licensing deal and they are used by EMTs on ambulances. Pretty much all of their battery holders use them [8]. It's also used with patients who need life saving battery powered equipment that are not physically capable of changing the battery themselves. They still sell them by the looks of their website, so they have been selling from 2012-present day. 4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like more of a reason to create Memory Protection Devices than keep an article about a patent Microsoft holds. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because it's still marketed as an InstaLoad Battery Carrier by Memory Protection Devices, and it's the actual InstaLoad invention that is the main subject of the sources. I don't think there are enough sources to create an article on Memory Protection Devices either. 4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who markets what as what does not dictate article creation. What matters is sources. Instaload has not received significant, ongoing, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources. It has a handful of brief mentions. Memory Protection Devices can claim to exist, yes, but it has hardly received significant coverage in reliable sources either. If it has, notability is not inherited from one to the other.

In the end, you've got to ask: what have you got for an article? Most of what's there is from press releases, or newsblogs parroting 1 for 1 every press release fact. How much content can you actually cite to independent sources? Not enough to ever grow beyond a stub. This has been a stub for 8 years and it will still be a stub in a decade. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong about a stub. Stubs are useful, and some notable topics only need a brief entry even in professionally published encyclopedias. There's no policy for deleting stubs. Further, you can't predict the future, and how an article may develop over time.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After evaluating the other sources in the article, I think there is enough here with the journal article I found to meet WP:SIGCOV. That journal article substantiates that the product is being used in a meaningful way to the world (ie real world notability). I added that content to the article. 4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Ched:@BarcrMac:@Flowing dreams:@SamHolt6: You may want to re-evaluate your decision based on the newly presented reference which is an independent peer reviewed journal article where InstaLoad being made and sold by Memory Protection Devices is the main subject of the article. I have a PDF of the article but I am not certain how to share that kind of file on wikipedia. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Flowing dreams has been blocked as a sock, I've struck through their edit. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per 4meter4. I vaguely remember an article, discussing this at about the time it was announced, and comparing it to competing solutions to the underlying problem, but don't remember any of the details any more (and unfortunately don't have time to search for it now). It might have been in a photography-related magazine, possibly even in German language. So, there was at least some (although not much) independent coverage back then. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Cmon people - read the guidelines for establishing notability! The references are garbage. This is an announcement from Microsoft, fails as a PRIMARY source as they cannot be used to establish notability. not independent. Exact same failure for this from newatlas.com which is entirely based on an announcement. This reference from electronicproducts.com is an advert/churnalism from a partner company (and written by Tom Blaha the CEO) that licensed the technology, it fails because it is not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. This reference is a Primary source and cannot be used to establish notability and it is basically an advert. The last reference inserted by 4meter4 does not appear to be available online but it is also written by Tom Blaha, therefore cannot be used to establish notability as he is the CEO of a connected company. Topic is a total failure of GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your assessment of the source I added. The article went through an academic peer review process, so discrediting it as a un-usable source is not really fair given the publishing criteria of the journal.4meter4 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi 4meter4, this is a common source of disgruntlement from those who have not properly read/comprehended the guidelines to references to *establish notability*. These are not the same guidelines are sources that may be used to support facts/information within an article. It is incorrect and inaccurate to say that I have "discredited" the reference as an "un-usable source". I have not. I have ruled it as inadmissible *for the purposes of establishing notability* because it is a Primary Source and also fails the test for "Independent Content" since it was written by the CEO - the same guy who was name-checked in Microsoft's Press Release!. Regardless of whether the publication is scholarly or academic, WP:ORGIND is very clear and unambiguous - "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by 4meter4 (talk · contribs). That the product received significant coverage in an academic peer-reviewed journal strongly establishes notability. I also found this article^{Internet Archive} in Geek.com that provides two paragraphs of analysis about InstaLoad from journalist Brian Osborne under "Brian's Opinion":

  I can almost hear parents around the world rejoicing over the notion that they won’t have to try to read small battery diagrams on game controllers or toys anymore, ensuring that when they replace batteries they are putting them in the right way. Some people may be confused why Microsoft of all companies would be introducing such a technology. The answer is obvious when you consider Microsoft Hardware makes keyboards, mice and game controllers which are big consumers of batteries.

  It was a nice touch that Microsoft decided to offer a royalty-free licensing program for products designed for people with hearing, vision or learning disabilities. It is these consumers who will probably benefit the most from the InstaLoad technology. It would have been unfortunate if they were forced to pay more for products to gain access to InstaLoad since a paid license to use the technology would add cost to a device.

  Cunard (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Nope. It has been pointed out to you several times that the criteria for establishing notability goes far beyond mere "reliable sources". You know that. There must also be "Independent Content". Nor is an academic source an automatic acceptance. To reiterate what I've said above - we don't make exceptions that "Primary Sources" are acceptable if they're published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. We require "Independent Content" and has been pointed out to you several times in the past, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you disagree, please point to the relevant guidelines that supports your point of view.

As to "Brian's Opinion", it provides no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation nor investigation. Brian couches his pronouncements in vagueness - he can "almost" hear parents rejoicing and certain consumers "probably" benefit the most. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.