Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SenesTech

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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SenesTech[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

not notable. most of the ref are from prnewswire which is just a company blog site, and others are financial reports or government repo for companies. Viztor (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disregarding the press releases, the references from reliable sources are enough to establish notability. I had heard that the New York subway was using a contraceptive to control rats, but I didn't know that this company was supplying the contraceptive product. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eastmain which references? They're all press releases and churnalism from what I can see. Can you point to the references you believe meet the criteria for notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Eastman. There is enough coverage to be notable. MB 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ I see two non-press releases both from the AZ Daily sun [1] [2]. That might be enough for notability - maybe. But this article as written is promotional enough to qualify for G11 especially as its creator seems to be a SPA with a COI if not a UPE. A reminder that G11 can be applied regardless of the notability of its subject. So let's speedy delete this piece of promotionalism (or worse) to let someone endeavor to fundamentally rewrite the article in a policy compliant manner, using RS like the AZ Daily Sun. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I talked myself into being a Keep below. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the keep is on the notability basis noted by Eastmain. The Weak is on the basis of excessive promotionalism indicated by Barkeep. I do not believe it reached G11 levels, but it did reach the standard that an AfD could have deleted it on. I've removed some of the clearer cut promo content - not enough to stop it being promo, but I believe enough to move it into "improve" rather than "delete" territory. Follow-up work would, as always, be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and it also overlaps greatly with the ContraPest article (not sure that topic meets notability guidelines either). Some references, like the one from the Guardian newspaper are churnalism where the article is really a poorly disguised promo piece. Others are simply based on company announcements. None contain independent content that meets the criteria as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe my thoughts are already covered in above comments. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 02:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company's Wikipedia article includes articles from The Guardian and The Arizona Daily Sun that provide significant coverage of the subject. According to this article^archive.is in The Fly, Craig-Hallum, a research, trading, and investment banking firm, covers the company. The article notes:
Craig-Hallum analyst Kevin Ellich reiterated a Buy rating and $2 price target on SenesTech after the California Department of Pesticide Regulation officially registered ContraPest for use in California. While he views the registration as a positive and is encouraged by the approval, Ellich says it is not unexpected as he thought the 30-day comment period would prove to be "more of a formality." Ellich notes that his estimates already contemplate a sharp acceleration in revenue based on regulatory approvals and commercial success.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations notes: "... sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such [public] companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Craig-Hallum publishes analyst reports about the company. There is enough non-interview coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not an analyst report so it doesn't count towards notability. If you find an analyst report, then fine but that's not one. The Guardian reference is churnalism as I've commented on above, as is The Arizona Sun reference. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, What evidence do you have that the Guardian, which RSN has considered generally reliable, is engaging in churnalism with that piece? That to me looks like a fully reported piece that has chosen to focus on SensTech. It is to me highly indicative of a notable company. I'm delete because of the writing on the article but I think it's crazy to suggest that the Guardian (and to a lesser extent Arizona Sun) should be discounted because it goes against your contention. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 This type of debate is very common at AfD. Yes, the Guardian is considered generally reliable but this is only one factor in examining sources to determine notability. In terms of evidence, first the obvious - this is a growing trend. From the churnalism article, it says (rather surprisingly in my opinion): In his book Flat Earth News, the British journalist Nick Davies reported a study at Cardiff University by Professor Justin Lewis and a team of researchers which found that 80% of the stories in Britain's quality press were not original. In my opinion, churnalism tends to follow a particular formula. It starts with a discussion of the problem, then the Aha! moment, then founder backgrounds, then why they're different, then funding, then the "future is bright" and finishing with a rosy outlook. Then we look at the reference in question. It is essentially a promo piece for the company albeit long and drawn out. The first 6 paragraphs discuss rats and nothing about the company but sets up "the problem". The seventh paragraph starts with our first link to the company and it is a quote from the CEO which sets up "the problem". The Aha! moment is next - "birth control of rats". Then the discussion on why they're different. Then a promo piece on the CEO complete with obligatory photo. More quotes from the interview with the CEO and her bio. Then the pieces about why they're different, comparing with the problems of traditional rat poison. Then the discussion about their success and the rosy outlook. The article then switches to quotes from IPM and a NY health department official. Back the article comes to the company where they discuss a celebration for staff and investors and the good news on the EPA registration. Then the future-looking paragraphs with "considerable work left to do" and the "SenesTech product is a breakthrough", etc. For me, sure it is a long read, but it is still churnalism. Another aspect of this article is that it is clear that all of the facts and information was gleaned from company sources or sources that are connected to the company. As per ORGIND, 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 my opinion the journalist received all of the information with no independent opinion/analysis/investigation or fact checking that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you see that I suggested that this kind of debate is unusual for AfD. What I think is unusual (I shouldn't have written crazy) is the contention that an article like the Guardian's isn't RS. People don't read past the first paragraph. If it was churnalism it would not spend six paragraphs settting up the issue before mentioning the topic of the supposed churnalism. Six paragraphs could be an entire story - in fact one of the AZ Sun articles is about the length of the Guardian piece before it mentions the company. I think you're suggesting there is no such thing as a reliable British new source and that is not our current consensus. I think the most likely thing is that the Guardian decided to cover this topic and then found that SensTech was an important player exactly the sort of reporting that would indicate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I think there might be a crossed wire. Nowhere have I argued that those publications are not reliable sources and neither have I even suggested that there is no such thing as a reliable British source. I am a regular contributor to AfD, focused almost exclusively on Organizations/Companies. I would regard myself as being very familiar with the guidelines for assessing whether references meet the criteria for notability. Those guidelines are contained in WP:NCORP and in my experience, references such the ones you've pointed to fail to meet the criteria of "independence" as detailed in WP:ORGIND. I've provided the precise quotation and its relevance in my previous response. Again, from my experience, churnalism follows a particular formula which I've described in broad brushstrokes in my previous response and this article hardly deviates. Yes, it is a long article and it provides a lot of information on "the problem" and is detailed ... but it is still churnalism and it still fails to demonstrate any independent (relevant) content clearly attributable to an unaffiliated source. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too have worked in this area. We are both experienced editors who understand policy. I maintain my comments - I think that Guardian piece more than satisfies the requirement of being an independent reliable source discussing the organization in significant detail. You maintain yours - the Guardian is not independent. Fair enough. Good faith editors can disagree about sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just to be ultra-mega-clear. The requirement of The Guardian newspaper being an independent reliable source is not in dispute. As you are an experienced editor who understands policy, you are also no doubt aware that being "an independent reliable source" is one half of the "independent" criteria for establishing notability (contained in WP:ORGIND), with the other half of that requirement being that the *content* is independent. As I've referred to multiple times above, the requirement is as follows: 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. So, to recap my position, so that there is no misunderstanding, in my opinion, this article fails to provide any *original and independent* opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking that are *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In addition, in my opinion, it follows the well-established format of articles that have, in the past, been flagged as churnalism. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I just did a little digging because while I'm generally willing to admit I could easily be the guy wrong on the Internet this particular contention about the Guardian still doesn't sit well with me after having read it now at least 4 times. Taking International Journalists Network (which I know nothing about) at face value this could easily be an example of Churnalism in the Guardian (from 2011). Notice that the promoted company is right there in the first paragraph. And headline. Where people read. Not 776 words later (enough words that if it were a standalone article it could easily qualify as significant coverage of the topic on its own). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, couldn't ask for any more. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is still actively being discussed so relisting to provide the opportunity for consensus to be obtained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (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.