Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVRYTHNG

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 keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EVRYTHNG

[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)

Prod was disputed; all references appear to be press releases; insufficient third-party reliable sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP due to a lack of notability. Sources include a salary review link likely to have been written by the company itself, trivial press release for an award from a market consulting firm, and other articles from non-reliable sources with questionable independence such as this, this, and this. What little coverage there is from actual news outlets, these outlets do not appear to be sufficiently established to count as a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. The only source I consider to be reliable, independent, and secondary is this from the Guardian. However I do not see multiple of such sources covering the subject significantly. There are plenty of trivial mentions elsewhere about their capital raisings or acquisitions, but these business updates do not really add to notability in my view. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has been covered in several analyst reports which meet WP:NCORP's notability criteria. For example this by Proficient Market Insights, this by The Business Research Company and this from Research and Markets. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analyst reports can demonstrate notability of a publicly traded corporation, particularly those listed on major stock markets per WP:LISTED. According to my research, I cannot see that this company is publicly traded? It appears to be traded on the private market and owned by venture capital investors like Dawn Capital and Samsung per Craft. Hence the analysis you link to does not fall within the letter or spirit of that guideline - which seeks to establish that publicly traded companies are likely notable. Not all such traded companies may be discussed in traditional sourcing methods like newspapers - but they may well instead attract stock analysis instead. This allows notable publicly traded companies ability to meet notability standards. I do not see how EVRYTHNG meets notability here. Thoughts? MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidelines are implying that analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies in order to meet notability criteria. Analyst reports meet the requirements of WP:SIRS in that they provide in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of analysis/opinion of a company and therefore meet the criteria for establishing notability. They're a gold standard really for meeting NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing. Though I can't see the contents of these reports to verify WP:SIGCOV the fact that EVRYTHNG is mentioned in the abstracts gives me enough confidence. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources provided by HighKing are useless unless someone has access to the full report. I'm not sure why they're being used as an argument to keep when they haven't even been added to the article, and likely will not be given their high cost to purchase. I'd maybe support draftification over delete, but I'm definetely not finding those sources alone to be sufficient justification to keep this PR soup. ––FormalDude talk 04:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude technically per WP:PAYWALL the high ridiculous cost of the reports would not prohibit their use, but I certainly agree with everything else you said! Indeed, I feel the high prices lend to my argument above that the sources are not there for public consumption, they are expensive because the article subject is a privately traded company and so the sources, accessible or not, do not even count as sources for the purpose of meeting WP:NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The high cost can also be used to argue the other side. The information about these companies is important enough to fetch a high price. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's much if any correlation between this company's importance and the prices of those sources. ––FormalDude talk 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so neither of us are making persuasive arguments about the price. In any case, WP:PAYWALL applies. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of clarity, I'm unable to verify the contents of the reports. But in my experience analyst reports nearly always meet WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed. As a side note, wow, two of the sources presented herein cost $4,000+ USD apiece to access for reading. Maybe some Wikipedians that are a bit affluent can help out here! It's only money, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reports provided by HighKing are not suitable. They are not automatically independent or reliable. And the subject of this AfD is listed there among many other companies, which doesn't make EVRYTHNG a unique or the best or the largest one. Here is the citation from the abstract: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5504908/iot-market-in-uk-2022-2026 "The robust vendor analysis is designed to help clients improve their market position, and in line with this, this report provides a detailed analysis of several leading IoT market vendors in UK that include 8power Ltd., Adaptive Wireless Solutions Ltd., Altiux Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Arm Ltd., AT and T Inc., Eseye, EVRYTHNG Ltd., and Oracle Corp." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticSnowWind (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really vague. Not suitable in what way? Because I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. The abstract, for example, says this report provides a detailed analysis on several leading IoT market vendors. So, t is a detailed (CORPDEPTH) analysis (ORGIND) in a RS. And this doesn't meet NCORP criteria because ... ??? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meets NCORP criteria per Highking.ChristinaNY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (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.