Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digipas Usa

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digipas Usa

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

This didn't even pass AfC but was moved to the mainspace by the original author. In any case, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources discussing the company in detail seem to be mostly WP:SPS. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would disagree that most of the sources are self published, I see a few that look to be broad coverage of events such as CES in which the company was featured, and others where people from the company are interviewed about something. One thing I would say is that few if any of the major sources are actually specifically about the company, and just mention or feature it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have specified that sources which mention the company and talk about it in a bit of detail are self published sources (tech blogs). I have amended it accordingly in this edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~Keep~~ per GNG and NCORP. See my version updated of the article for comparison to current.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(How I arrive at this AfD)I guess I accidentally goofed up a TW concerning this AfD, sorry, looks like that has been fixed. Brings to my attention to the article itself and that the subject is notable. A substantive topic of the FOX News article, the main topic of Daily Mail article, the main topic of the Mashable article. The seven months of declines in AfC were likely because the topic is a corporation. COI is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON and there is nothing in the guidelines requiring that the article go through AfC.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You amended your !vote here to include a link to a draft in your userspace (not the original draft). That draft has the same fraudulent references and claims as the original draft. I am not going to point them out for the third time now (you also restored some of them after I removed them from this article) If you wish to un-amend your !vote to remove the link to a draft with fraudulent content I will not object to this comment being hatted. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There, I updated my vote. Yes, there was a reference that didn't support an inconsequential passage, after 5 months in AfC, I wouldn't describe it as fraud. I went through everything, corrected a few of your mistakes and found a couple of new supporting references.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes now you changed it a second time. The fraudulent stuff from the original draft is still in that draft as of the time of this comment. you remain remarkably unconcerned about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

commentary Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In this Fox news article - was one among 8 products reviewed, the coverage of the company itself was restricted to one line. This daily mail article (a WP:PUS) and Mashable article (a blog) are regular product reviews. I am yet to see an article discussing the company in detail. (Please note that even if the product was notable, per WP:INHERITORG the company would not be) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit you said COI is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. I'm not sure where was COI mentioned in this deletion discussion. I would be glad if you point it out to me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added the COI tag to the article HERE and you are the nominating editor -- one plus one generally equals two. You also made note of the AfC declines on the article's talk page. WP:INHERITORG does not deal with products, but it does have a See also hat called WP:PRODUCT which states: If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In this case we have a company that is notable for its product (innovation, big surprise) would you rather have separate articles about their various (notable) products?
Finally, the GNG does not say anything about "discussing the company in detail," the GNG states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I didn't notice any "original research" in the article and the level of detail is about the same as any corp article, because you get editors adding advocacy tags if you write in depth. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 11:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know the way you drew conclusions about COI was actually 1+1 equalling 3. This discussion was only concerned about the notability and not about the COI. While we do mention COI in discussions sometimes, you will notice that I did not mention it here. Also GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Fox news (while reliable) is still a trivial mention in a list of similar products. The other 2 links offer better coverage but the sources are not exactly reliable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you placed the COI tag, you own it. Unlike some people, I actually read the talk page and edit summaries before I comment in AfD or make article space changes, respecting WP:STEWARDSHIP. Sometimes tendentious editors will degrade the article first and then nominate it. Generally when they delete prose, they delete references too. In addition, you had already brought it to my attention that you are very active in WP:COIN.

I don't know why you've bolded the latter half of your GNG quote, but I've already provided the GNG definition for "Significant coverage" above. For the difference between trivial (a simple mention) and significant coverage I defer to WP:ANALYSIS:

A secondary source [...] contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

The GNG also states: "a topic" and "...but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", the difference (not trivial) is the source author's analytic or evaluative claim. There is no WP:OR required to know that the product is the company's creative work. What you are saying is like evaluating a book article and saying, "This source is not about the book, it's about the writing inside the book." 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latter half of the GNG reliable sources that are independent of the subject is exactly my point. Unless the sources are independent and reliable, we do not count them (regardless of significant coverage). In this case, the latter 2 references (Dailymail and Mashable) are questionable sources. The problem here is you are only trying to argue for the significant coverage part while ignoring the "independent and reliable" part. The coverage in the fox news link is debatable (1 out of 8 similar products and 1 line about the company). And even if the Fox news article was focused on the company, it still wouldn't help pass GNG. We need more reliable and independent sources for that.

I placed the COI tag on the article because the COI was quacking loud and clear. Notice that I didn't mention it here in the deletion discussion. As for your second part about references, deletion discussion are not based on whether the article contains references. It is based on whether references exist out there for the topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail has a 138 world ranking on Alexis, Mashable is 376 in the world, both authors appear to staff writers. Wikipedia now allows sources like Southern Poverty Law Center and MediaMatters in BLPs, both of which are advocacy groups so I'm not worried about The Daily Mail or Mashable for non-controversial topics. We have these news articles connecting the company to the product [1][2][3] [4][5] and dozens of more articles about the product alone. Per WP:PRODUCT the product belongs in an article about the company. Notability is based upon sustained coverage, but as the moving party, feel free to ask about Daily Mail and Mashable in this context at RSN.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRODUCT Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result. The company is not notable simply because a product is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you should be proposing a product article rather than a deletion, but I still think the Mashable and Daily News would pass RSN in this context. The company also appears to have a second product that is making waves, so we might wind up with two product articles. Time is also not on your side, the more these topics are searched, the more Google tends to find about them. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that 009o9, to his credit, discloses that he engages in paid editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Lemongirl942 and I have a difference in ideology, I do take paid work and she is very active in COIN. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually appreciate that as well. But this is an AfD discussion, so we discuss the issue of notability as equal editors and for me any COI shouldn't have an effect on the notability of a subject (unless the article is overly promotional and qualifies for G11). The arguments (based on notability guidelines) are the only thing which matters here.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no signature on public facing maintenance tags (a pet peeve of mine when trying to figure out who posted legacy tags), it is not transparent that the AfD and the COI come from the same editor. I.e., a tag saying the article should be deleted and another saying the article should be reworked are not of the same opinion, this appears to be coming from two editors, and could be prejudicial on a quick read.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the company's products may meet notability guidelines, the company itself does not.

Delete This article was declined as a draft numerous times by numerous reviewers. Once conflict of interest concerns were pointed out, the creator of this article removed those comments and promoted the article into the main space themselve. The problems which were noted in AfC remain, lack of depth in coverage. This is an agressive attempt by an employee of this company to promote it via Wikipedia. RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more commentary Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment references where the award winning WP:PRODUCT is attributed to the company.

Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP regardless of the editor's COI and ~~AfD's~~ AfC's five months of mishandling the newbie with unhelpful canned declines. (No guidance on COI/PAID reqs.) Diff 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've opened a discussion (Here) in NCORP concerning the "inheritance" verbiage in WP:PRODUCTS. The sentence is in direct opposition to WP:ORGIN which states that the coverage on the organization or product are both applicable toward notability for organizations (which includes commercial and non-commercial entities). The unfortunate change to the PRODUCT guideline appears to be the work of one editor, I can't find any discussion, nor consensus evidence concerning the change.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example where: a) there was a bunch of media hype about the proposed launch of the product (it was not even a real product yet, for pete's sake, when there was all that coverage in 2015.. and it appears that they are still refining and they demo'ed it again at CES2016) and with all that hype, there is no notability for the product at this time; and b) the parent company doesn't inherit that (non-)NOTABILITY in any case. If you want to use this as your test case it is terrible. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tone f the article is largely promotional. The good references revolve around a luggage lock. Does Wikipedia need a whole page describing a luggage lock company? I'm thinking it does not.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article had some fraud in it (sources that didn't support the content, at all) and most of it was about the new product. In this series of edits I wrote it to be about the company, condensed content about the new product. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually there aren't enough independent sources about the company to meet GNG. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yet more commentaryJytdog (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And I see that you are removing the notable cites. You are really going to not allow a CES, Tech for Better World Innovation award (Source USA Today and Daily Mail) and a FoxNews product feature back into the article? Source 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you've removed the TSA compliance fact,[6] opting instead for the ever more interesting, "pricing and availability were not announced", (perm) from the same source.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments I left for you at the article Talk page, as well as my edit notes. This is not an article about the product, and we do not follow the hype around pre-release marketing. No one, not even the JSB employee, added details about the Group's other products, and it is clear their intention was to market their luggage lock. That is fine for them, but that isn't what we are about here. And please don't ever bring up the Daily Mail as a source in a discussion; that tabloid has been rejected over and over at RSN. It is a tabloid and we steer clear of the gutter. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CES innovation award needs to be seen in context and may not be as notable as it seems. Here's the list of awardees. There were multiple award categories, one of which was Tech for Better World. There were 15 winners in this category with eGeeTouch® Smart Luggage Lock being one of them. Note, that CES also has a more selective list "Best of 2015 Innovation Award Honorees" (see page 2). Digipas is not included in this list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem like notable properties to me per WP:DUE. There were 3600 exhibitors for the 2015 show.[7] FoxNews "8 best," were related to security products, but I'm not going to try to find out how many of the 3600 were related to security. I don't follow sports anymore, but do we mention how many "Bowl" games college football teams have won? How about how many times an NBA team makes it to the playoffs? Seems like each year there is a 50/50 chance of winning there. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Wikimedia Awards page.[8] I have no idea what they are, nor do I care, but they deserve to be there IMHO. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Organizations display awards to promote themselves; that is what WMF is doing with that page, so that is just a... weird example. And it is not what Wikipedia editors add to encyclopedia articles. We actually have a policy against promotion. As I noted above the person who wrote this, clearly wrote it to market their product. This article is not about the product and we are not marketing their product. You are putting too much WEIGHT on the hype. And nothing you are writing here has anything to do with sources that show the company is notable. Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The award page is on Wikimedia. Note that not all of the awards are included at the Wikipedia article Wikipedia#Awards. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of threat?diff What you've done with your edits is to remove all of the MSM sources that have the subject's name in the title.diff I believe your edits introduced more primary references than the original COI editor.diff 009o9^Disclosure(Talk)

009o9: that link is not a threat, it's a statement of fact and policy. People frequently get banned for an aggressively promotional editing stance. This is because Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and those who edit with too much of a promotional tone are abusing the platform. There are plenty of other places on the web to host promotional content.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor The problem is that there is nothing in WP:PROMOTION that applies here. These references are facts and I'm not the person creating "...overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources" to push an agenda. The guidance in TEMPLATE:Advert states: "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." If we don't want content about legitimate businesses and products, change the guidelines so people stop writing and submitting them. The discussion at NCORP is productive, the immaturity level here is ridiculous. In fact, you are the only delete vote that has come close to referencing a guideline or policy. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's nice. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gee, I though only un-involved editors could hat conversations per WP:TPO. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability, clearly nothing acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All that I'm seeing in terms of reliable sourcing is that one of this company's products is rather useful and recommended. That appears to be it; the firm itself isn't notable. Even calling the product itself notable is at least a bit of a leap. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many of the issues which prevented it from being accepted through the AfC process still remain. Which is most likely why the editor who moved it to mainspace decided to circumvent that process. Searches show it fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 16 May 2016 (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.