Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWS Truepower (3rd nomination)

AWS Truepower

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/AWS Truepower
• Articles for deletion/AWS Truepower (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/AWS Truepower (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/AWS Truepower (AWS Truepower (3rd nomination) nomination)

AWS Truepower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT apply here because (1) WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a business webhost, and this itself is a non-negotiable policy and, next, WP:CORPDEPTH states that "Unacceptable sources include: works carrying mere trivial coverage, brief statements, announcements, press releases, any material written or published by the company, anything by for the company or where the company talks about itself, wherever published", and itself fits the current sourcing given: 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 is their own website which is resourced 6 times, 3 and 4 is a trade publication which is therefore unacceptable considering it's simply echoing whatever the company itself says, therefore not independent; 5 and 6 are simply local announcements, 7 is simply an FAQ (see here) and 9 is simply a republished announcement. Next, WP:GNG itself, not to mention, never being an actual policy, is itself stated "Subjects may be presumed (not guaranteed" if....", thus it's not interchangeable or replaceable to our established policies, considering advertising has always been enforced as unacceptable. Now, the new sources,the 1 Spanish source is also only a mere announcement, about one of the company plan as are the 4 that followed, The AlbanyBusinessReview is self-labeled as a "business trade publication" basically meaning it only serves the businesses and their PR, thus not independent, regardless of whatever information there is. As past reviews of this article showed, there's been no genuinely independent, significant or substantial coverage, such as what this search found (in there, the 1st page are all clearly labeled press releases or notices, the second page emphasizes it until it says "no further articles". Even examining the sources offered at the 1st AfD, were simply trade publications, something even WP:CORPDEPTH stated was unacceptable, and that's actually one of the simplest standards for any company article; worse, one of the comments actually stated "All of the sources in the article seem to be from the company, and it is rather promotional in tone, [here's a company quote]", itself enough for any deletion. Also, as our simplest standards and policies show, articles must be improved if found to actually be notable and past attempts at this have had no success, but considering there's never been no actual meaningful coverage about the company to at least suggest minimal improvements, there's nothing to suggest this company should continue misusing us as a business webhost; "Wikipedia is not a business webhost" is actually mentioned repeatedly in the policy WP:NOT. The history also shows several SPA accounts focusing in what the company published at its own website, thus we can safely presume WP:Paid was violated alone especially as some of the accounts actually stated they were an employee, it's worse when the company consistently showed contributions in the 7 years this article existed. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly advertorial. Separately the article has had plenty of chances for improvement after two AfDs, but this has not occurred. If this company was indeed notable (of which I'm not convinced), than an editor independent of the topic will likely create the page some time in the future. There's no rush to reach such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Article and sources do not establish establish notability per guidelines. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Current sources

1. Company web site

2. Company web site

3. All mentions of substance are quotes from company's CEO or Director of Solar Services

4. Trade publication - company doesn't seemed to be mentioned

5. All mentions of company contains information provided by company CEO

6. Trivial mention that company produced a map for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

7. Dead Link

8. PR announcement about company acquiring Windographer

9. Company product web site (Windographer)

10. Blog entry provided by company

11. Company web site

The further reading section contains PR info or trivial mentions.

G-searches and HighBeam provided more of same and NYTimes had no hits at all. CBS527^Talk 02:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – This company was previously known as AWS Truewind and Meteosim. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG; enough coverage exists to meet WP:N. Some source examples are listed below. Note that the sources below are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on various websites. Full disclosure: I closed the first AfD discussion as an uninvolved user, but this does not preclude me from participating in this new AfD discussion.

This company also meets WP:AUD in that it has received coverage outside of its local area, such as national coverage in Wired as well as coverage in Spain and Iowa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• "America’s Wind Energy Potential Triples in New Estimate". Wired'.
• "El viento impulsa a Meteosim". La Vanguardia. – Based in Spain

– English-translated La Vanguardia article. Title: "The wind drives Meteosim"

• "Unos físicos para prever el tiempo". El País. – Based in Spain

– English-translated El País article. Title: Some physicists to predict the weather

• "Simular la atmósfera de Brasil a 20 años vista 'sin pisar el país'". El Mundo. – Based in Spain.

– English-translated El Mundo article. Title: Simulate the atmosphere of Brazil to 20 years seen 'without treading the country'

• "Con el viento al Magreb". El Periódico de Catalunya. Template:Es icon – Based in Barcelona, Spain

– English-translated El Periódico de Catalunya article. Title: With the wind to the Maghreb

• "The art of building utility-scale wind farms". Cherokee Chronicle Times. – Based in Cherokee, Iowa
• "Change in wind hurts future". Times Union.
• "Wind energy company to model L.I. coast area". Times Union.
• "AWS Truepower works to predict the future of wind to site turbines". Times Union. (subscription required)
• "Software acquisition broadens AWS Truepower analytical services". Albany Business Review. (Note that searching for this article's title in Google only provides a link to this article at Albany Business Review, so this is not a press release).
• Wind Power For Dummies – Has content about the company's windNavigator service.
• Windpower Monthly Newsmagazine (subscription required) – Has content about the company's windNavigator service.

---

Article title searches

• Title search
• Title search
• Title search
• Title search
• Title search

• Comment and analysis - The Albany Business Review is in fact a press release profile because it's an indiscriminate local business story advertising its local business, something WP:CORPDEPTH states is unacceptable as is WP:NOT; the first sources are simply guide stories about the company's activities, also unconvincing for WP:CORPDEPTH. Even the paywall Tim's Union are simply trivial business stories about "plans" which, to quote WP:CORPDEPTH is unacceptable because anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published". Our simple standards themselves have never accepted primary influenced sources as these because Wikipedia has no place in servicing company needs. As a native Spanish speaker, I never needed a translation of the Spanish sources and read them to find they're only casual announcements about the company, in fact ElMundo, LaVanguardia and ElPais is in their specific "PR business section". As our policies state, articles must be improved to be notable, something we've long held. "received coverage outside of its local area, such as national coverage" is not the case if the contents themselves are still unacceptable. To actually quote WP:N, and it also says the same thing, and it also says WP:NOT is still our main policy thus WP: Wikipedia is not a webhost. In fact, the offered searches are showing the same exact mirrored articles, including from the same timed schedule, thus not even satisfying GNG, which says is unconvincing. Several claims of improvement were made before but none happened, so how can we know our policies will see them now? SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• All news sources that cover company-related topics are not automatically "PR" as some sort of peculiar default. I get the impression that the nominator would simply like all company-related articles to be removed from Wikipedia, regardless of source coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)