Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OtterBox

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OtterBox

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

The claim to notability is that the products are so popular that the term is used generically for waterproof cases. I see no evidence of that. I do see such indications of deliberate promotionalism as a list, complete with bold face headings, of all their products, details about their guarantee, and a listing of minor awards, including ones for a "growing" company, which means not yet notable. The references are almost entirely from promotional sites. The editor has written a number of similar articles for various people and companies. I am listing this for deletion rather than trying to fix it on the principle that clearly promotional editing for topics of borderline notability, should be a reason for deletion. We can delete here for whatever we think harmful or improper to the encyclopedia, and this sort of editing is in that category. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the article as written does read a bit like a puff piece, and the internal sourcing isn't great, I think that the subject does nonetheless fairly clearly meet WP:GNG. OtterBox products have received fairly extensive coverage in the mainstream and tech media: ZDNet [1], the Raleigh News and Observer [2], Macworld [3] and [4], The Coloradoan [5], etc. The writing is a bit promotional, but not irredeemably so, IMO. Accordingly, keep and tag for cleanup. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is pretty clearly WP:PROMO (very weird to have a patents section, for example), but that doesn't take away from its notability necessarily. There's a decent number of hits on Google News, and it was named by Forbes as one of America's most promising companies [6] and some product reviews in major publications (e.g., [7]. I do share your strong distaste for the paid editing going on here. mikeman67 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Company clearly meets the GNG with its current sourcing, and it isn't quite as messy as I expected from reading the above. I gave it a little cleanup and it should be okay now. czar ♔ 22:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after the edit mentioned above it's no longer promotional in nature and obviously notable. Chris Moore (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely WP:NOTABLE and has a wide variety of reliable sources. Might've been a promo at one time, but it's certainly not now. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:57, 7 March 2014 (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.