Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H2O Audio

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. No rationale has been given for deletion and no one other than the nominator has suggested deletion. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H2O Audio[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons why I wrote this article and find it to be notable and Wiki-worthy
I fully understand the reasoning behind not allowing every company to post a company profile, and the need to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and free of advertising. However, I think a company take makes the only deep dive case for ipods and iphones is worth noting, because if you're a diver, especially a technical diver who travels to deep depths, you may have to spend HOURS underwater at decompression stops and this invention allows a diver to watch a movie or listen to music to pass the time. Also, inventing and patenting something like the Commander Scroll Wheel that conducts the electricity needed to operate a touch sensitive scroll wheel on devices like an ipod through a hard case and on to the device while maintaining full waterproof integrity I think is pretty amazing and note worthy. There are a few companies out there that produce waterproof ipod accessories, but none of them are going about it in the same way, or have created such notable inventions as H2O Audio. This is shown by the 5 patents that they hold and also by various reviews and write-ups on significant tech and consumer websites, magazines and journals. I feel that the article is written in a fair unbiased tone that doesn't state whether the products are good or bad, but rather that they are an interesting invention. I also feel this article doesn't promote the company in any way, but rather just explains how such unique inventions were derived and how they are being used today. I welcome ANY feedback I can get on how to make this article better, and thank everyone who has put the time in to help. DanaS (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS[reply]
Keep: There seems to be sufficient independent coverage to satisfy the notability guideline. --Slashme (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'll first note that there isn't a rationale given for why this article is being nominated for deletion. That somebody tagged it for speedy deletion and it was contested is not a reason for deletion. After digging int he article history, I'm assuming it is on notability grounds. The references provided in the article do not do a good job of establishing notability. The US Patent Office does nto establish notability. Neither does Michael Phelps facebook page, nor Laird Hamilton's website. I'll also note that they aren't even reliable sources. However, they've received coverage in Macworld, LA Times, WCBD, and other minor coverage such as [1]. Not a trememdous amount, but enough to estalish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (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.