Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netatmo

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 no consensus. Opinions remain divided, so this is kept for a lack of consensus to delete it. Sandstein 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netatmo[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by 212.83.148.19 with the following rationale "Added many references to make it match to Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Sadly, I don't see how the new refs help; no refs I see are independent, reliable and providing in-depth coverage. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I've found extensive coverage in at least 4 languages, including reviews of its products in The Guardian, TechCrunch, Wareable, CNET, etc. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FoCuSandLeArN: Would you care to share links to said coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is absurd. I list random sources following: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; dozens more are available, as well as in print. There are ample references for this stub; heck I don't event know why this is a stub! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @FoCuSandLeArN: Passing mentions do not count: the fact that The Guardian mentions one of the company products in its article about cool gadgets does not mean the company can be said to have been covered by it ([11]). All the other links you have seem to be either passing mentions, or niche outlets, some of them possibly PR "you pay we write" ones. If you disagree, please tell us which of the links you provided are reliable, and why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete for now as I would've expected better results and some of the best results I found was this (that's not much). SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking, right? First of all, your search included the terms "French company"; secondly, the search you've linked includes extensive coverage, such as from Fast Company, The Telegraph, etc. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to FoCuSandLeArN's sources here is some coverage in French press: Le Figaro, Le Monde. Vrac (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vrac: While those are reliable outlets, the Figaro article seems to be a brief review of one of their products (a camera) and the fact it got some awards. Le Monde links are mostly passing coverage, through [12] seems to be a more in-depth, and so far seems to me the only good source we have. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more at Le Figaro, including this. Then there is L'Express, which I hadn't looked at, with this and others. I'll grant you that not all of the coverage is in-depth, but compared to the things we usually fight over at AFD this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH with flying colors. Vrac (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question about it, Vrac. Piotr merely stating that reviews are paid for without providing evidence for that accusation is no justification for deletion. I'm starting to think he's pushing some agenda here. Note that the reviews are by no means "passing mentions", and sources have without a doubt an editorial process. Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch, a notability claim in a reliable source if there ever was one. What does the nom have against these people? The stub is already bordering on citation overkill and Piotr's request for more references is absurd. Sources abound and were politely presented (an onus on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE), now kindly desist with the deletion crusade. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you accuse me of being on a crusade and having a hidden agenda, I'll ping an experienced editor and mediator, whom I'll ask to review both this article and my (and yours) arguments here: User:DGG. I'll add to my prior arguments that the Figaro entry seems to be your average run of the mill "start up gets financing" type of a news piece. [13] seems more promising, and seems the 2nd good source presented here, through I'd appreciate a review by a more neutral French-speaker (who can distinguish between a reworded press release and proper journalism). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Those guidelines are rather specific about what constitutes significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Netatmo has not received that kind of coverage. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. Having award winning products is certainly a start for gaining the kind of coverage the guidelines require, but by itself does not make the company notable. --Bejnar (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The awards may not be important enough for implying that the company notable notability. As far as I can tell from the references, the CES gives multiple awards for every product judged to above a certain standard, with one product being rated "best" in each the category. There is nothing here reliable enough to show that these products were actually so rated as "best", or merely honored. The CES website is insufficiently explicit. I'm not an expert in this, but it certainly isn't obvious.

The CNET review is in my opinion the best of the references; though fairly brief, I do know they have reasonably high standards. . I cannot distinguish in this field for the articles in Figaro and LeMonde the difference between PR-instigated articles and and true coverage. Certainly, it is my impression that giving such full articles to what after all are quite minor peripheral products, that PR placement is the more important. But I would have to judge it not by the language used only, but by their habitual standards. And I do not know this. But I could quite as likely have come to the opposite conclusion; in fact, I wrote this out both ways! In the end, I'm going by the impression that it is not likely that a firm limiting itself to such products is really very important. There's a place for common sense, even in WP.

This shows the absurdity of our judging things like this by WP:GNG. The world is actually such that it is impossible for us in many cases to judge the difference between journalism and advertising, and this unfortunate fact makes a mockery out of our standards. It's time we went by the RW, not the media business, which I do not trust to be honest for topics such as this.

Incidentally, The pseudo-guideline INHERITORG has it exactly backwards. A product is not notable because it is produced by a notable company, because not everything even the most important company makes is important; but a company making notable products can not do so without being itself important. Inheritance, both in the RW as well as WP, ordinarily goes downwards, not upwards. A company becomes notable by its accomplishments--which for the ordinary business concern, are its products. Normally, it's easy to see the difference--most notable companies make several notable products. If in doubt whether we need a separate article on each, we go with the larger topic: the company, with sections for the products. When there is a company with only one important product, it can be a doubtful, because the product may indeed sometimes be much conspicuous than the company, and should be the topic of the article. In this case, there are multiple products of equal importance, so if they have each won a major award --for which there is insufficient evidence-- the article would be on the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this situation is more a commentary on the absurdity of AFD than the absurdity of GNG. The company has gotten significant coverage in the French press because its products are interesting. Le Monde and Le Figaro are the top two reliable sources for France and L'Express is not far behind. Le Monde is one of the best reliable sources this planet has to offer. We cover what reliable sources cover so GNG is amply satisfied. If the equivalent coverage were to be found in the equivalent UK or US sources this AFD would have been a snow keep.

AFD outcomes depend on who shows up; and in this case who shows up with how much linguistic knowledge, how much knowledge of the sources in question; and, frankly, with what agenda. The nominator has referenced a Signpost op-ed they wrote about promotion in Wikipedia; dare I say they may feel that they can't back down on this delete because of that. When I compare this to some of the other corporate crap I've seen kept at AFD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Horizon Group, the WP:ABSURDITY of the situation is demoralizing. Vrac (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch. Those are two prime examples of the state of AfD. AfC is quite similar in that regard...depending on who's available at any given time. That's the problem with running a quasi-collaborative endeavour. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:47, 19 September 2015 (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.