Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill A Watt

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 to delete. —Sean Whitton / 15:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill A Watt

Article does not establish notability per WP:PRODUCT, sources do not help establish notability. Manufacturer does not have own article. Steve Carlson^Talk 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a surprising number of sources exist: [1], [2]. I have added two to the article so far. Gadget reviews, but still... that's non-trivial coverage. Two ~500 word articles reviewing the product. Lots more seems to exist. --Rividian (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per steve. You said it Dad (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search shows 170 sources, many about this specific product, such as [3] , [4] [5] , [6] , [7] and [8] . Seems to satisfy notability requirements for a product. I know of no requirement that the manufacturer have an article for a product to have an article. Edison (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned that about the company because WP:COMPANY seems to imply that information about a product should be on the same page as the company, unless it gets too big, in which case it should be broken out into its own article. Kind of weird for a non-notable company to be making a notable product though. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to find the relevant guideline, WP:KINDOFWIERD , which would say that notable products do not come from non-notable companies. The problem is that the articles are about the product, not the company. Edison (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just another "usage monitor", fancy name or not - has no notability on its own. And as Steve pointed out, the manufacturer doesn't have its own article. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the guideline you've linked to, WP:N, defines notability as non-trivial coverage by multiple sources... and that coverage has been demonstrated and is in the article now. So linking to WP:N is quite curious. --Rividian (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just any usage monitor. Unlike many in the market that do not really work well, this one actually works, and is well liked by consumers. The P4400 has 278 reviews on Amazon as of the date of this post, which is a very high number for any product. The product's manufacturer doesn't have to have its own article for the product to be notable. --AB (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (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.