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. Although the refbombing is a problem, that can and should be fixed editorially. Sandstein 06:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallbox[edit]

Wallbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails notability requirements miss significant coverage. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has in-depth coverage in multiple WP:RS like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], should be an easy pass for WP:ORG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Puzzled by this, company clearly sails past WP:ORG by a million miles. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS the article's overlinked to death and is a mess, but the sourcing is clearly there to do better. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the overlinking is a problem but deletion is not needed to fix it. As mentioned above the sourcing exists to do better. versacespaceleave a message! 11:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, although in addition to the overlinking issue, there is a WP:REFBOMB issue as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I meant WP:REFBOMB. Arse/elbow issues today... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The refbombing is at ridiculous levels, and there's little or no encyclopaedic content, really. But the biggest problem is that when you actually look at the sources, many of them are just product reviews, others are passing mentions of awards etc. (some in primary sources), there are two Forbes 'sites' pieces and a couple of interviews, one is about wallboxes in a generic sense, the Spanish Business Insider article is identical to the English Newsmotor one (hence one is a translation of the other, or both come from some common source), and so on. And none are in what you might call 'solidly RS' publications — trade mags are notorious for accepting press releases and similar content in exchange for the company buying ad space. Once you separate the wheat from the chaff, you may be left with just about enough to establish notability, but I think it's far from clear-cut. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per above meets GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (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.