Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaveo

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. Setting aside any concerns that are not in the purview of AfD, the consensus of the discussion is that the subject has not been shown to meet the WP:NCORP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaveo[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)

Fails WP:NCOMPANY – a small, privately held company (LLC), occupying a small office somewhere in Utah and producing niche software. Article only includes affiliated references or ones that don't even mention the company's name, proving perhaps that the company exists but falling short of offering evidence of its encyclopaedic notability. Accounts of article creator and contributors have been alleged to be affiliated with the company. (Redacted) — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Utah. Skynxnex (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about the creator of the article, or any of the other contributors, but I haven't ever been paid to work on the article. It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). All of my contributions have been working to improve the article by adding references, removing marketing speak, and expanding it based on references I found (pretty much what I do for every other article I work on). As it stands right now, it's pretty much on the border of notability, and it could go either way. The Deseret News article is definitely a solid source. As the nom noted, most of the others are more informational references that (taken together) might push it over into notability, but also may not. So, I could go either way. If it is decided to delete the article, I'd request it be userfied so I can work on it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that being small, privately-held, in Utah, and producing niche software do not, in and of themselves, disqualify any company per WP:COMPANY. Those attributes are irrelevant to notability. As my previous comment noted, the only thing relevant is whether the company has been given significant coverage in multiple, third-party (independent) secondary sources. The Deseret News article is one such source. None of the others used in the article are likely helpful there. So, at least one additional such source would likely need to be found. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be asked whether Deseret, a single reference from ~~2016~~ 1999, is a sufficient evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability; especially that it... does not mention Aquaveo. I guess the argument will be that it's insufficient. Please note that this is an article about a company and its notability per WP:NCOMPANY, not about any of its products which may or may not be notable per WP:NSOFTWARE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Deseret News article talks about "Environmental Modeling Systems", which is a previous name of Aquaveo, as mentioned in the article here. "Environmental Modeling Systems" isn't a product, but a former company name. I made no comments about its products, so please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm very well aware that notable products don't equate to notable companies. And I never argued that a single reference in DN is sufficient evidence to make Aquaveo notable (in fact, I said the opposite). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the 25-year-old article in local newspaper indeed mentions Environmental Modeling Systems, i.e., the business that was taken over by Aquaveo a decade later. Wikipedia still needs sources on Auqaveo specifically that would offer evidence of in-depth, lasting coverage of the company. Will you be able to find them? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, EMS wasn't taken over, but rather became Aquaveo since, as far as I can tell, everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up. As for "Will you be able to find them?", it's not on only me to find sources. I'm not even arguing one way or another. However, as nominator, it's on you to do your due diligence to make sure there aren't any articles or other reliable, third-party sources that could be used in the article. I've already given you my thoughts (only the DN article helps toward establishing notability). Please stop harassing me, especially when I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Please note that on the English Wikipedia, Harrasment is covered by policy. It is strictly defined and not necessarily synonymous with broader global English-language usage. If you think Kashmiri has harassed you, then WP:DWH applies; dispute resolution is suggested. Conversely, WP:AOHA also states that, Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory... It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment. So, moving forward, please lodge your accusations against Kashmiri at a noticeboard, or retract them as unfounded. Perhaps an apology is in order; your conscience must dictate. Happy editing! ——Serial 20:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Please note that on the English Wikipedia, writing a hostile comment and ending it with "Happy editing!" is considered by some^[who?] to be somewhat impolite. jp×g 🗯️ 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG We're having a case of an administrator who has for years edited while having an obvious COI, when finally caught avoided answering questions and baselessly accused others of harassment – and the only thing that you, a fellow admin, show concern about in all of that is that someone may not have been sufficiently polite to him? Seriously? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: It's actually been something a lot of admins have been discussing for a little while now. Polite signatures can come off pretty badly when giving someone a warning despite being made with the best possible intentions. Some people, especially noobies or those who aren't familiar with a user with a signature like that, can take it the wrong way. That's all, not a big deal. My comments on the accusation you're making will be at the relevant board.

... Happy editing? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, so one of those discussion about how to survive without offending someone somewhere? Damn this young generation... — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yeah. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z – the Offended Generation. Good luck, man. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for "everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up"? This needs verification and please see WP:BURDEN. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, As far as I can tell.... The few people mentioned as working at EMS in the DN article (and anything else I've found) also worked at Aquaveo when it first started. My comments certainly do not need sources as they are my own comments. WP:BURDEN applies to articles, not discussions such as this since I'm not claiming anything that needs any sort of proof. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever been paid to work on the article @Nihonjoe: I don't think that was exactly the question. It's relevant to the outcome of the AfD, so I'm going to ask you directly: Are you, or have you ever been, employed by Aquaveo? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though not until well after I made the majority of my edits there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the dates, it appears I was mistaken in my remembering of when those edits were made. They were made shortly after I began working at Aquaveo, though (as mentioned before), I was never paid for making those edits or asked to make them by anyone at Aquaveo. Additionally, while WP:COI strongly discourages editing by those with a potential COI, it does not forbid it as long as the edits are done within the guidelines and policies governing editing of any article here. All of my editing of any article on Wikipedia is by my own choice and at my own whims. I haven't ever been paid to edit any article here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"by my own choice and at my own whims" and for your own benefit, because it's your own employer whose article you improved (from here to here), along with your employer's products, SMS, GMS, and WMS. Did you similarly improve articles about your employer's competitors and competing products? No? That's fine, you're totally allowed to, by your own choice and at your own whims, only improve articles about your employer and your employer's products, but as you know, you have to disclose it when you do that. And as you also know, it doesn't matter if your employer paid you or asked you, because you benefit from it either way. That's why WP:COI is not the same page as WP:PAID. Levivich (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it for my own benefit? I seriously doubt, given the niche category of software, that any of my edits have done anything to financially (or otherwise) benefit me or Aquaveo. In the time since my first edits there, I've edited thousands and thousands of times, and barely touched those articles. They were all created long before I had anything to do with them. All of my edits to them were trying to clean up the mess they were before I did anything there. I certainly haven't "only improve[d] articles about your employer and your employer's products" since my first edits there in 2015. Those adits likely aren't even 1% of what I've edited during that time. I seriously doubt any of the articles about Aquaveo or its products has helped them (or me) in any way). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, I don't believe someone with your level of experience and sophistication is unaware that a high-quality Wikipedia article helps boost a company's reputation, which helps boost a company's financials, which is good for the company's employees. By "only," I meant "only your employer and not their competitors," I didn't mean that this is the only thing you've done on Wikipedia. Anyway, I was happy to read your post at AN, thanks for that. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. Sort of dead end if the article ends up userfied... — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an off-wiki challenge of this timeline. You might want to revisit that, just in case. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this topic would be best discussed with @PhilKnight: or the arbcom email instead of on a public articles for deletion page. Sagflaps (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a general note, significant contributions to Aquaveo and related hydrology software WMS (hydrology software) have been made by @Edit42: and @42of8:, though it appears neither account is active. Sagflaps (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who those editors are. I have never edited as either of those accounts, I did not create either of those accounts, and I don't know who did. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe Would you be able to provide the approximate date when your COI started if you recall it? Thanks :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be digging into my personal life, thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I thought you'd prefer to assist the community in identifying edits made while having a COI, as this tends to work out better on Wikipedia long term, especially if accompanied by a plausible explanation or self-reverts. Ultimately, it's a question of trust in your judgment and words. But, naturally, don't feel compelled. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to scrutinize any of my edits. Outside of those when I first began editing in 2005 and was learning the ropes, I've done my best to be very neutral in all of them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. You surely know it's not about WP:NPOV (nor about WP:PAID) but about WP:COI. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy per Nihonjoe's request). The Deseret News source is decent, but I can't find any additional sources that I'd consider as contributing to notability. I've tried searching under all the company's previous names. Also tried searching newspaper archives; the only result was this passing mention (TWL access only). I'm open to reconsidering if better sources are found. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, which requires multiple significant and reliable sources. I tried looking under both company names and could not find any other than the Deseret News one. popodameron ⁠talk 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source potentially contributes to notability here and it's about another company that was taken over by the subject company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SUSTAINED. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This deletion nomination is a proxy for taking action (be it no more than a warning or a slap on the wrist) for an editor holding advanced permissions allegedly doing undisclosed COI editing. This is unfortunate. My reading of the sources shown in the footnotes, without taking the first step onto the internet to sniff around, is that this is a GNG-pass. It is a well-constructed and useful piece as well. Let's not throw the baby out the window just because daddy may or may not have been less than forthcoming. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you alleging that this is a bad-faith nomination? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure you believe what you believe and it is a close call. But it's clearly taking the form of a proxy for something else. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge the spin out articles here. This isn’t a hugely notable company, but it’s an academic spin out and there’s enough coverage of it and its products to make something of. We should at least try that first, rather than have teh dramahz. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the vast majority of content has been created by employees if off-wiki evidence is to be trusted. Who do you want to maintain this article for this micro business for which the last and only in-depth sourcing worth its name dates to 1999? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass NCORP and nobody has even tried to put forward NCORP sources. Levivich (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet NCORP, which is ultimately the only thing that matters in keeping this article in mainspace.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2024 (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.