Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Theatre Controls

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Theatre Controls

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

contested prod. No assertion of notability of this organization, reads like an advertising brochure. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. I attempted to find independent mentions of the company but could find none (to be fair, the company name is irritatingly difficult to search for, etc.) Several Times (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, willing to change to a Weak Keep on the basis of newly available sources. The article still needs cleanup. Several Times (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree the article does need a cleanup. The wording skirts along the lines of an advert/press release. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They appear to be a notable company designing lighting and control systems for theatres and stage performances. This book indicates that their products are in wide use; so wide that the book uses the ETC products in its descriptions due to its popularity (see p. 98). Their products are noted in this book about concert lighting. And apparently, people get excited about one model of their spotlights enough that it gets covered in a book about lighting for digital video and TV. Also covered in writing about scene design. The article appears to lean bit towards the spammish side, and I suspect company reps have been editting the article. I removed a timeline section from the article that was lifted directly from the company web site. However the coverage in these books (there are more) establish the company as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Whpq. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This industry is small and the authors of the books that Whpq found surely are familiar with the company ETC. In this trade magazine ETC is listed as a member of the trade group USITT and one of the authors of the mentioned books, Mr. Moody, sits on its board.--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2011 (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.