Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DTT Surveillance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DTT Surveillance

DTT Surveillance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There are no provided non-trivial articles about DTT. One of the provided and still available articles doesn't mention DTT until page 2 and the other is just a company press release. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Most of the article seems to come from the corporate web site and so there is no 3rd party verifiability. Seems to fall under the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING JJLatWiki (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete this looks like a successful company, but there's no evidence that it's particularly notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn - I went and checked the list of refs given. First two have expired links. Third one to L.A. Business Journal requires a log in (that's a no no). Fourth ref doesn't even mention the subject, and fifth ref from findarticles.com links to this very same Wikipedia article! Sting_au Talk 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually the Securityinfowatch article does mention the subject - about the last 40% of the article is about DTT's products. And requiring a login is most emphatically not an "no-no". However I have found a copy of the first few paragraphs freely available online and fixed the reference in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no requirement that a reference not require a login, or even be online at all. Physical books and newspapers are just fine. Suggest that the references be changed to footnoted cites, with the author, issue, etc. filled in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Only one of the references requires a login. 2 have been removed, so those wanting to keep this article based on those articles have the burden of finding a valid source. Of the remaining 2 references, one mentions the DTT, and the other is a common press release from DTT. For all the boasts, one would expect it to be an easy task of finding non-trivial articles of which DTT is the subject. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, due to a lack of independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. I have cleaned up the references in the article. We now have a link to a freely available copy of the start of the LA Business Journal article, which seems to give the subject substantial coverage, and the other article which covers the subject from the bottom of page 2 to the end. I suppose that's just about enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteFails WP:Dull Aatomic1 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge Suggest heavy trim and merge to Closed-circuit television. There's some very interesting sourced material here in the article about point-of-sale integration with video surveillance, which the CCTV article doesn't cover yet. Suggest creating a short paragraph from the material in this article to add to the CCTV article's "More recent developments" section, then redirect. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (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.