Deletion of Breathometer (2nd nomination)

Comment: Notable and passes . Source examples
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources satisfy |notability in that they are significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. They go beyond blogs and press releases and the manufacturer's website, which are all we get for some spamvertisement- type articles which should, in fact,be deleted as nonnotable.. It was an innovative product, in that it was the first miniature breathalyzer which could be plugged into a smartphone with an app to test for alcohol level, with other features such as calling a cab to the user's location The references which lead to a "Keep" in the previous AFD should not be dismissed on the grounds that they are mere product reviews. What's wrong with product reviews? Nor should coverage of its funding be dismissed. It is coverage. The sources included CBS news and PCMag. Additionally, the LA Times had a long article or review: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/13/business/la-fi-tn-breathometer-smartphone-breathalyzer-20130313.  One could have also asked if it fails OTNEWS, since in the previous AFD all the stories amounted to a splash of news coverage over a couple of weeks in March-April 2013. In fact, there is continuing coverage, with KRON-TV in December 2013: http://news.kron4.com/features/tech-report-smartphone-breathometer/ and Popular Mechanics, as linked from the Sacramento Bee January 2014:http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/27/6105651/hands-on-review-breathometer-estimates.html. News editors of reputable mainstream media find it to be worth noting in detail, and it is thus notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. If the tone of the article sounds promotional, then it needs editing, not deleting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)