Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Start, Inc.

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. Thanks to L3X1 for supplying the dynamite. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Start, Inc.[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their request, as posted at WT:AFD, is copied below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the Smart Start page for deletion. Has had multiple issues for over two years, no ones bothered to fix, and doesn't seem to warrant a special section when Ignition Interlocks are already covered in detail. Appears to just be a free marketing page for the company itself and serves no important informational purpose on it's own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:203:5033:65A6:13BE:C818:D892 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability asserted and the content seems only to be here to describe the product:

If you fail a test within the last 4 months of your sentence (Wa State Law) an automatic extension of 4 months is added to the original one year requirement.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Rhadow (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the Gnews just brings up a load of press releases which do not count as RS. However, this seems to be that type of product which everyone has yet no one talks about. Wikipedia writes what other people write about it. Therefore over the next day (it's late) I will remove everything promo-y and unverifiable from the article, to get it down to the stub that this requires. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to allow L3X1 to try and fix the problems mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have applied the tactical nukes. I added a few lines regarding an ongoing legal action against the Minnesota DPS. I have noticed that when people mention "DUI Interlock device" (Oh, search for Smart Start interlock, it brings up more sources than Smart Start, Inc.) they tend to specifically mean SS. I found a few passing mentions on interlock devices, both of which refer to Smart Start. 1, 2, The Boston Globe, while not mention SS by name, includes a picture and caption of the product/company at top, and so does the Review Journal. I think I have found more real sources to add to the article. If consensus is still not notable enough, even for a stub, then I ask that it be redirected to Ignition Interlock Device w/o deletion, because notability may be confirmed in the future as more states adopt laws and the lawsuit in Minnesota plays out. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Found more articles mentioning it: [1], [2], [3], Wisconsin adopts laws and has picture, Washington Post has a different picture and caption for SS, Alabama, someone is Ashboro removed the device and was reported to the Police. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention of the company, Washington Times has that image at the top (they have another article from 8 months prior re: IID, but no mention of SS except that picture), longer mention of company and product. TLDR I believe that Smart Start, Inc. is notable under the GNG to have an article for itself and that the IP nom's issues have been dealt with properly. I believe that the stub which I have cut it down to satisfies policy about not attempting to promote the product or giving undue weight. The sources shown here prove notability, but I don't see how they can be added to the article except as pile-on refs. In the case that this is not acceptable I suggest a merge or redirect as described above. pinging participants Rhadow, K.e.coffman. Ultraexactzz as well because they are neutrally present .Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Every day I learn more about the press and human nature. (1) No publicity is bad publicity. A PROD will get someone to rewrite an article that has lain fallow for two years. (2) There are a lot of noteworthy people and products out there that stay under the press radar. (3) When the Fourth Amendment is involved, it's a huge deal. I would change my vote if I could. BTW, the company is not Smart Start Inc., despite the URL. It is Smart Start LLC, owned by Seven Inc. [4] Rhadow (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to change your recommendation, if you like. I'd suggest striking your bold Delete, above, and making a new bold "Keep" down here. That lets the closing admin know which direction your opinion went when it changed. Thought, honestly, most admins reading your comment would understand where you're coming from, and would judge consensus accordingly. Remember, it's a debate not a vote. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to be much improved, thanks to L3X1's work. I would be cautious not to make the article just about the litigation in Minnesota (as opposed to the product itself), since legal cases can be notable on their own merits if they go far enough. But this is a very good start. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has received significant copy editing after the previous relisting above occurred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're gonna have Intoxalock we should keep Smart Start Rhadow (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2017 (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.