Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chumby

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chumby

^{[Check Google hits]} as far as I can tell a NN product, and the article needs a rewrite even if kept. Company's site is down, which doesn't bode well for it. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• NN product? A number of blogs have entries for actual use/hacks/autopsies of the chumby. --x1987x^(talk) 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, personal blogs are almost never reliable sources per WP:RS. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But the corporate website would be, right? That google hit link, has the corporate website as the second entry. I understand that blogs aren't reliable sources, but the product information would be. Please give this article a chance. It only released 2 days ago. google cache--x1987x^(talk) 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The company's own advertising does not count towards notability. Non-trivial published works have to be written by other people, independent of the company. See WP:CORP. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — 9,280 hits from Google is good enough to keep I say Deon555^talk_Review 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google locates. The very first page that Google lists, for example, doesn't even contain the word "Chumby". Many of the others in the first 20 are random people who are using this either as a pseudonym or as a random nonsense word, or even people who have this particular surname. If you want to make a case for keeping, demonstrate notability by citing sources that are about the subject, not by counting hits. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

<after ec>A vast majority of those google hits have absolutely nothing to do with this product. If you include something more specific in a "Chumby" search, such as "device" you get 55 distinct hits, and 266MHz ARM gets one. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It certainly appears to be a legitimate product. If it hadn't just been announced at a trade show, I'd vote delete because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The product announcement for early next year is sufficient in my book. Erechtheus 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to start the page; worthwile to expand. --x1987x^(talk) 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What notability criteria are you using? How does this subject satisfy your criteria? We have criteria for products and services at WP:CORP. How does this subject satisfy those criteria? Please cite sources. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a product only recently launched. I had hoped some users might have more information about the technical specs.--129.116.73.88 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As above: What notability criteria are you using? How does this subject not satisfy your criteria? We have criteria for products and services at WP:CORP. How does this subject not satisfy those criteria? Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete <after ec> currently a not notable product. And problems with verifiability and reliable sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) A bit more specific for Uncle G, specifically, the product fails both criteria one and two of WP:Corp Criteria for products and services. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:X1987x has been spamming people who support deletion, asking them to change their minds. My view has not changed. I don't think company released product information and a small number of articles and blogs meets CORP. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if reputable sources can be provided, otherwise delete under Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources will appear shortly. It was just released late Friday, August 25th, few news sites have the ability to cover the product since their staff is probably out for the weekend. The product is "in the wild" and released to a limited few. Google rates links by popularity, as soon as it starts spidering the hundreds of blogs about the product, the corporate site will be top on the list. --x1987x^(talk) 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] O'Reilly Radar the sponsers of Foo camp have an original first-person writeup. Corporate blog.--x1987x^(talk) 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There should be reputable sources now, before the article was written even. Wouldn't the company who made it have something on their website? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The product does not yet appear to pass any of the criteria for product under WP:CORP. The product's existence merely eliminates attack under WP:HOAX, but does not imply notability in any way. The future success or otherwise of a recently launched product from an unknown company would be too weak to justify an entry under WP:NOT. Note that x1987x is author of the page under AfD. Ohconfucius 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, unverifiable. If reliable sources are provided, than its a keep. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable and unverifiable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems real enough: Hackaday MikeMorley 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't imagine why anyone would want something like this, but it does seem notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - many products are announced at shows, but some never see the light of day. No independent articles for the product appear to have been published. I don't see where the criteria for WP:CORP has been met.

1. There currently aren't any independent articles about the product. They may be written in the future, but as of right now, they simply don't exist.
2. The product is not so well known as to be suffering from genericization.

--Whpq 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's now 5 original articles from companies other than the manufacturer. About the possibility of a hoax, [2]100 prototypes were passed out at Foo. The product exists but hasn't been finalized. --x1987x^(talk) 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, promotion. Mukadderat 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as seen here: The product exists but hasn't been finalized. Whispering^(talk/c)

  Comment x1987x is canvassing for keep votes.

• Weak Delete, per WP:NOT but if the author can find better sources showing it's notability, then I'll change my vote to keep.Ramsquire 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There are now two magazine articles cited in the article, which I do believe satisfies WP:CORP. Erechtheus 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither of those articles satisfy CORP for me, namely: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." I don't see those articles as "non-trivial." My delete stands. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm not sure what criteria you're specifying for non-trivial. It was my understanding that examples of trivial coverage include reprints of press releases or listing of hours of operation. Am I missing something else? Erechtheus 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - promotion --T-rex 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - In the same spirit as the Sony Mylo, people come to Wikipedia to find out more information on a currently unreleased product. The product itself is notable, as there does not seem to be any direct competitors as of yet. It is alone in its category of bedside computer. Eptin 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Product website is back up --x1987x^(talk) 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above too. -- bruce89 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has references, is notable (first product launch at O'riely's foocamp), hence keep LinaMishima 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep TMC1221 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are not good reasons to delete it: it's notable, "crystal ball" does not apply, and WINP. And even if it were a flop, failures get articles too.
• Keep per being extremelly interesting. Linux based, Open PCB design, etc. It's an interesting initiative exploring interesting new ideas. It does not matter whether it succeeds commercially or not, which is yet to be seen.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Promotion. Interesting product idea, for sure, but anyone else remember Kerbango, which never shipped at all after similar buzz? -- PKtm 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep obviously notable product. don't see what discussion is about. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:41, 4 September 2006 (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.