Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solmetric

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solmetric[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)

Unnotable company per WP:CORP. Article is filled with promotional language and material; references are either from unreliable sources or press releases. Gotitbro (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is supported from reliable sources, including newspapers are reliable trade publications. See also the comment about sources at Talk:Solmetric. Eastmain (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - Moniteur is a reliable source, though I can't see all of it to confirm SIGCOV vs mention, AGF it seems reasonable. However the next newspaper source - The Press Democrat, while it looks suitable, lacks deep links. I need to have a better look at the industry ones - some of them are clearly vastly better than the cryptocurrency ones, and may well be suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by [1], [2], [3], [4]. Promotional language can be addressed though editorial improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links just about the same event, i.e., the acquisition by another big solar player and the last two talk about the product not the company; moreover the last one is written by an company executive himself. Not sure how these establish notability.Gotitbro (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, the first reference is based on a company announcement on the acquisition and relies extensively on quotations from company sources. Fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The second mentioned the company in passing but is primarily concerned with the fate of their most popular produce. The topic of this article is the company and not the product. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third reference is in relation to an award for the product at "Le salon des énergies renouvelables" and the company gets a mention in-passing, fails for the same reason and the second reference. The fourth reference doesn't discuss the company at all and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finding references that meet the criteria for establishing notability isn't about looking for any mention by searching in Google. The article must be provide intellectually independent opinion/analysis/commentary about the company itself. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about both the company and products. We have redirects and boldface mentions of the products in the lead. If the finding is that the company is not notable but the products are, we can rename the article. I appreciate that the sources I've provided are not perfect but I believe they are adequate to demonstrate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references provided to date meet the criteria for establishing notability. The product gets some mentions but there are no intellectually independent references that meet WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to mention that most of the refs are about the products, that too in an unnotable way, and not the company itself.Gotitbro (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I second Kvng's thoughts. Notability is established and article can easily be cleaned up. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 04:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You really should explain *how* notability is established since none of Kvng's references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Is there another reason? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your criticisms of my keep above. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unremarkable private company going about its business. Sources are hyper-local, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, not meeting the new and improved WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Satisfies GNG easily due to coverage in GBooks, GNews and the sources in our article. James500 (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, you really should provide links to references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. Saying that "there's load of links" isn't an argument and likely won't be weighed as a !vote by the closing admin. Providing specific links is a better way to register an opinion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:18, 24 June 2018 (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.