Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Assistant (2nd nomination)

Home Assistant

[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)

The article is very promotional in tone, but that wouldn't necessarily be a problem if I was able to find any reliable sources that would allow it to be pruned and made respectable. My problem is that, while there are 65 references in the article, they are almost all either download sites, affiliated sites, or WP:UGC websites for enthusiasts to share experiences. There are a couple of potentially RS refs that I can read, to TechHive and Gizmodo, but they only mention the subject in passing and offer no substantive content. There's also a Wired article which seems either to be paywalled so I haven't been able to review that. Based on what I see however, I'm not convinced that WP:GNG is satisfied. I have looked for better sourcing, and drawn a blank, but I confess that software is not my forte so would be willing to withdraw if someone with more familiarity with the subject is able to improve the sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, given references are self-published ones CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 23:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a core contributor to Home Assistant. We have put out a call for help improving the article and have received a wealth of suggested fixes which I will implement over the next few days, including adding more and new sources. I expect once this is done the article will pass muster. It would be helpful if you could point out any specific areas that need improvement as I am new to editing WP and don’t know all of the guidelines like you professionals do. Robbiet480 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Robbiet480 I've changed your !vote to 'keep', which is the normal language used in discussions like this. In my view, there are two issues with the article at present. The first one is the language used, which is not compliant with our manual of style - it's too promotional, and overall it reads more like a product brochure than an encyclopedia article. However, if that were the only problem, I would have fixed it myself rather than nominating for deletion; the more substantive problem is that I can find no significant coverage of the software in independent reliable sources - all of the sourcing in the article is either user-generated, self-published, affiliated or otherwise inappropriate, and I can find nothing better online. What you need to do is identify decent sourcing that an article could be written around. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 07:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a list of third party references I found quickly: —Mrand ^{Talk • C}
- https://www.linux.com/topic/embedded-iot/home-assistant-python-approach-home-automation/
- https://voicebot.ai/2020/09/26/whats-next-for-stanford-university-open-source-virtual-assistant-almond-an-interview-with-principal-developer-giovanni-campagna/
- https://www.androidcentral.com/whats-home-assistant-and-why-should-home-automation-enthusiasts-consider-it
- https://www.cnx-software.com/2020/12/16/odroid-n2-based-home-assistant-blue-announced-as-official-hardware-for-home-assistant/
- https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/raspberry-pi-home-automation-20-01-2020/
- https://hub.packtpub.com/home-assistant-an-open-source-python-home-automation-hub-to-rule-all-things-smart/
  - Mrand These are independent of the subject, but which of them do you think are reliable? Are they not all UGC of one form or another? GirthSummit_(blether) 15:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Girth Summit I think Android Central is a professional publication (apparently it is owned by Mobile Nations, and the author of that piece, Jerry Hildenbrand appears to be on staff there. I cannot tell if the Linux.com article is by someone who was on staff at the time or if that was UGC. Some of the others seem to be on a spectrum between "user-submitted content", "user-submitted content with editorial oversight" and "articles written by staff at tech publications", but it seems to me like there's a good amount there that is on the more professional end of the spectrum (I think this is typical for software / tech articles). 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Girth Summit Not much to add to what 0x0077BE wrote, except to echo that this is becoming what typical coverage for technical software looks like (The tech news media landscape is changing rapidly, and there is simply too much stuff to cover with fewer people). I'll also point out that it meets other criteria: not temporary... it has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disregarding the promotional tone of the article and focusing only on the notability, this seems fairly well covered in the tech press. I note that Stacey on IoT seems to regularly cover Home Assistant, is unaffiliated with them, and looks like a niche independent tech media blog with professional editorial standards. I also see a profile on Home Assistant from The Ambient, which seems to be in a similar category. Neither of them has a Wikipedia page, but both are indexed by Google News. I am also seeing a profile in Linux.com, which does have a wikipedia page. There is also a Dutch-language profile on the founder and project at Tweakers, written by the Editor-in-Chief (which is what Google Translate tells me "Hoofdredacteur" means). I haven't gone through all of the copious references here, but I think this is one of the more notable software packages I've seen with Wikipedia pages and I think it definitely clears the GNG bar — it's certainly not all UGC or non-RS content.

It is true that a lot of the references are not evidence of notability (they are serving a different purpose in the article), but buried among them is some clear evidence of significant and direct coverage, in my opinion. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit right upfront that whataboutism is a poor defense, but it takes only a few random clicks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_and_open-source_software to see this article has more and better sourcing with regard to Notability than many other open source projects with articles here. I'd submit that many open source projects that may otherwise be notable when compared to their commercial competitors in terms of user population/uptake do not have the equivalent media coverage for sourcing simply because they do not have marketing and public relations staffs that generate press coverage for commercial software companies/products. If the article survives AfD, I'll pitch in to help address the tone issues. AUTiger » talk 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my nomination, I noted that sources for software packages were not really my area of expertise; if editors experienced in this type of article are telling me that they feel that some of the sources are reliable, I have to give heed to that. I'm not convinced about some of these, but perhaps the article is salvageable after all. To be clear, I still think it needs a pruning saw taking to it, to remove all the unreliable sources and puffery, and I'm grateful to Aytiger for offering to help with that. 0x0077BE, Mrand would you also be willing to weigh in? I'm not in a position to withdraw the nomination, since a couple of people have already !voted delete, but I would be content with the article being kept if I knew that some experienced eyes were going to take a proper look at it. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Oops, reping Autiger GirthSummit _(blether) 09:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I am a very infrequent editor these days and I'm very overburdened with various other responsibilities so I can't really promise to make any major overhauls to the article, but I will set a reminder to check back in a few weeks, and if someone wants to ping me on my talk page when a revamp has been done I'd be happy to give it a copy-edit / review pass. Sorry I can't promise any more than that. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very coincidentally we are on the front page of Ars Technica today with this article: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/how-to-achieve-smart-home-nirvana-or-home-automation-without-subscription/. We didn’t ask for this coverage, just a happy accident. Robbiet480 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existing references to coverage on Stacey on IoT website should be suitable as reliable sources. Stacey Higginbotham is a prominent tech journalist that has been working in the industry for 18+ years (writing for professional publications like Fortune and PCMag among others), has a verified Twitter account, appears in Google News, etc. A quick search also turned up an ArsTechnica article about how artist Lauren McCarthy used Home Assistant to study behavioral changes of the participants in her performance piece. And just today, Ars published another in-depth article. So I don’t think sourcing is an issue here, but agree the tone could use some adjustments. SeanMooney (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A citation from Github's State of the Octoverse 2020 report lists Home Assistant as the second highest number of contributors to a Python project, only below Tensorflow. Every other project with less contributors has a Wikipedia entry. https://octoverse.github.com/static/github-octoverse-2020-community-report.pdf aaronsb (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs cleanup, but it is a notable project that meets GNG with several non-UGC references that are reputable in the tech-media landscape. Sirthorn (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A note about off-wiki canvassing Can I just draw everyone's attention to WP:CANVAS? I'm not accusing any particular individuals here, but the pageview statistics for this page show a very sudden increase in readership when this discussion was added, and I note that amongst the people !voting keep there are brand new accounts, accounts that have not edited for over a decade, and an account who refers to the subject in the first person - something fishy seems to be going on. I no longer believe the subject to be non-notable, and I think there's only one way that this discussion can be closed; there is however a body of work to do to get rid of all the unreliable sourcing, much of which amounts to blogspam, and to trim any any cruft that can't be reliable sourced: I hope that some of the editors !voting keep will be willing to help with this task. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I came here as a result of off-wiki canvassing and I am a casual acquaintance of one of the core contributors (though I don't use the software in question myself). I probably should have mentioned that at the start, but to the extent that I saw canvassing, it was of the form, "Are there any experienced WP editors who can help with this?" and not "Please vote to keep the HA page up!" and I stopped in fully intending to take and unbiased look at the case for notability and explain notability criteria to the team if need be (as is my SOP when someone off-wiki runs afoul of WP policies, conventions or drama).

I think Robbie (who is using first person pronouns to refer to the project), did give adequate notice that he is a core contributor to the project, and I think what canvassing occurred was a result of not knowing WP policies more than anything else (and they basically were just asking for help from people who *do* understand WP policies, so it's a bit of a Catch-22 after all...). I think at the end of the day this will be a net benefit for the project, since it got some hopefully motivated eyes on the article and was an opportunity for Home Assistant contributors to understand the contribution policies and workflows involved in wikipedia — they are open source contributors, after all, and I think generally motivated to contribute to free culture. Thanks for working on this Girth Summit, sorry for not being immediately forthright about my (albeit weak) connection to the subject. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]