Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune Pine

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Pine[edit]

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

I placed a WP:PROD notice on this article with the rationale "Unlaunched future product with no evidence of attained notability. See WP:FUTURE.". The Prod was removed by the article creator (along with the maintenance templates) without comment. The concern remains, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the product to be released by the company, the Neptune Pine, is a very innovative product in the field of wearable computing. There are currently no smartwatches on the market that may operate without the use of a smartphone; the Neptune Pine is the first such product that may do so. Therefore, it is of asserted importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symontian (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting "...the first such product that may do so": in other words speculation about what may be the position at the time when this firm may bring this product to market. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on potentially notable future products. It depends on actually-achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. There have also been articles submitted about the company, one of which I have speedy eleted as no indication of importance, since nobody could rationally think a company that has yet to release it's first product belongs in an encyclopedia. Products are trickier to judge, & thus rightly excluded from WP:CSD A7. since some few unreleased products that are subject of active discussion before their actual release are notable. An alternative that has sometimes been used to delete articles like this via speedy is G11, promotional, on the grounds that the purpose of introducing an article about a product such as this at a time such as this could only be promotion. I considered doing this, but since it is here, let's get a community consensus, partly in order to convince the contributor that this is agreed policy. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors from a couple of Bell Canada IPs have been removing the AfD template (and other maintenance templates); I have reinstated these again, but obviously this is regrettable action which can limit knowledge of and participation in this AffD discussion. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a message from Neptune Computer Inc. The company has decided to post this article as it plans to submit a press release regarding the product in the next few days. Therefore, it is highly anticipated by the company that a large amount of traffic will be searching for the product's information on Wikipedia. The company merely did this in order to prepare for the anticipated traffic; Neptune has no intention of using the article as a promotional tool. Therefore, the company kindly asks the participants of this discussion to not delete the article; at least until January 27th, or 7 days from today. It is highly likely that reliable tertiary sources for the article will exist then; if not, then the participants of this discussion are free to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.253.11 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment verifies that DGG was right in his opinion above. The article appears to be envisaged as playing a role in a promotional campaign. It has been created for the benefit of the firm, rather than to further the Wikipedia project. I have flagged the WP:COI on the article, but am becoming inclined that a WP:CSD G11 is the correct action. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) The firm have also now issued their press release on PRWeb ([1]), quoting "Simon Tian, co-founder and CEO of Neptune Computer". AllyD (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I requested semi-protection given the constant removal of the AfD tags. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G11 The article is written exclusively from primary sources, it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The Slashdot reference is user-submitted and was not even submitted to the main page, it's essentially a blog entry. The Digital Journal article doesn't mention the product. The sole argument for keeping the article at this point "at least until January 27th" is to serve a promotional end, and using a longer process provides a method for marketers to work around our processes relating to promotional content, setting a dangerous precedent for the community. Additionally, having searched, I was unable to find sources which evidence that this product meets WP:GNG.... yet. Which is a pity, since the product looks cool. We should write about it, however, when it is encyclopedic, and in an encyclopedic manner. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally a speedy delete as G11, but as we are here now, let's get consensus. Lectonar (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this secondary source: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/22/the-neptune-pine-smart-watch-has-a-camera-runs-android-and-wants-to-replace-your-smartphone/
Keep Despite the obvious COI going on here, the launch seems to be catching the eyes of certain areas of society deeming this product as "the first full-feature smartwatch". [2][3][4][5][6] I'm not sure if these are all derivatives of the same article, but at least it's covered by various sources. Dengero (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That there is a spurt of coverage after a press release in some marginal sources does not establish notability. From Dengro's list, the Times-Union is a good reliable source, but it turns out only to be a press release. This fails to establish the product as notable. Coverage is not widespread, nor can I find any evidence of sustained interest in this product as covered in reliable sources leading up to the press release. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lets wait until it actually comes out so we can see if it's going to be a success, before we declare it notable. If it's as innovative as is being claimed here, it shouldn't take long. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:34, 27 January 2013 (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.