Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleutia (2nd nomination)

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleutia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS.Refs are routine business news, annoucements and PR. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — There seem to be enough reliable sources to constitute WP:SIGCOV. (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]). PopoDameron ⁠talk 22:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not trust you since you have only done 39 Afd. We will go through these references. They are PR at best. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trust whoever you want. AfD is about building consensus, not taking one person's word for anything. PopoDameron ⁠talk 08:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the precise paragraph in any of those references that contains in-depth "Independent Content" about the company (e.g. meets WP:SIRS/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND)? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep May not be Apple or IBM, but still notable. [5][6][7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random person no 362478479 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
• Neutral leaning weak keep. I have downgraded my support in view of the arguments provided by HighKing below. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the precise paragraph in any of those references that contains in-depth "Independent Content" about the company (e.g. meets WP:SIRS/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND)? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it to me, according to X-Tools.   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When he posted this, the editor was here for exactly three weeks. The editor is a WP:SPA. From their behaviour, it reads as though they have been here for years. It looks suspicious. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Analysing the references provided here and whatever I could find, none contain "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Invariably the articles are either brief descriptions of the product (which isn't the topic of this article) or provide quotes from the founder/company. There's no real in-depth information about the company either. Fails our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh look, another brand new editor that dives straight into AfD discussions without providing a shred of interaction. This isn't a !vote count. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you give us some indication on your reasoning? Otherwise whoever closes the discussion will likely ignore your vote. But being new does not mean your opinion shouldn't count. Don't let people WP:BITE you away. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's an analysis of the sources mentioned here. Perhaps the Keep !voters can point to specific paragraphs/sections in some of these sources which they believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability?
  • BBC article from 16 Sept 2016 simply regurgitates company PR/quotes/photos with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. At 6 sentences long (including quotes, etc) it also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • The Register article dates 10th June 2019 simply regurgitates the announcement of the same date, fails ORGIND.
  • Independent article from 28 Aug 2015 regurgitates the information available on the company's website from August 2015 and related PR which is repeated in other articles from August 2015 such as this in New Atlas and this from Good News Network which in turn is based on the article in Fast Company dated 4th August 2015. All highly similar/related articles, clearly based on company PR, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • PC Tech Magazine article dated October 2015, entirely based on an interview with the CEO, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • Alphr article from December 2016 relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from the CEO, no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND and not in-depth on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Fast Company article from August 2015, already mentioned above, part of the August 2015 PR campaign by the company, relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • Blog entry on Scientific American dated September 2015 may not be a reliable source as it is unclear if any editorial policies are exercised on the blog content, but leaving that aside it is a summary of the August 2015 "Solar Classroom" PR campaign by the company, nothing new, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND

All of the sources here are based on PR with no "Independent Content" and/or in-depth information about the company. It would be helpful if some of the Keep !voters identified what parts of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources I linked above:

• The alphr article uses quotes, but as far as I can see it is merely an assumption, that they just took company information without any review.
• The fastcompany article makes some use of quotes, but again that they just took information from the company seems conjecture to me.
• The Scientific American article is, as far as I can tell, no top-level quality source, but I would not dismiss something from Scientific American, even if it is a blog. Content is certainly limited.
• The New Atlas article is in my opinion sufficiently independent.

I guess ultimately it comes down to a difference of opinion over what the threshold for WP:SIGCOV is/should be.

My basic stance is "when in doubt include", but I can certainly see how people can disagree on that. Ultimately that's why we have discussions for deletions. I don't think this is a case of this has to be in Wikipedia, but neither do I think this is a case of this has no place in Wikipedia. If the consensus ends up in favour of deletion I won't run to get out my soapbox. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ORGIND says (and I already quote this above) that sources must contain content that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So even if you say it is "conjecture" or an "assumption" on my part, it really isn't since the information isn't clearly attributable to any source and the context of the rest of the articles makes it clear that at least a good amount of the published information (e.g. interview/quotes) originated directly from a company source. In other cases, based on the timelines, we can see that the company issued PR and announcements on the topic at the same time or before the articles, and I'm unable to identify any new information in those articles. Can you?

For example, you seem to this that the Alphr article meets the criteria to establish notability. Lets take a close look. There are 19 "sentences" relating to the company (I counted periods even if they were multiple within a single quote) or their products. 9 of them are directly attributed to the CEO. Out of the remaining 10, 3 directly discuss the products, not the company. That leaves 7 sentences which we can look at. Even if you were to say that all of those sentences are original/independent (which I don't ... a number are either lead-ins or lead-outs from the CEO quotes), 7 sentences is insufficient in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH. Your basic stance of "when in doubt, include" is not in keeping with NCORP policy (e.g. WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as above). On the Scientific American article, in general blogs are not considered a reliable source (with qualifiers) but that isn't the reason it failed our criteria, instead it was because it and the fastcompany article regurgitates company PR (link provided above relating to "Solar Classroom") with no additional information included, therefore no "Independent Content" nor in-depth information that didn't originate directly from the company.

I've asked above if people can identify precise paragraphs/sections in particular sources that they believe meets our criteria for establishing notability. You've linked back to entire sources - it would be helpful if you could narrow it down further to specific sections/paragraphs. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is as clear as day to me. scope_creep^Talk 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. I didn't check your claims about the timeline of press releases in detail, but I'm just going to trust you there. And while I don't agree with everything you wrote I have downgraded my vote to "Neutral leaning weak keep". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The coverage within does not meet NCORP and a check does not show anything of significance. While keep !voters say the coverage is significant, they have failed at every given chance to demonstrate specifically where the coverage is. Analysis by Highking is good, and deletion appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources don't establish that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:03, 5 May 2023 (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.