Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addnode Group

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addnode Group

[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)

A company article by a disclosed paid editor that has been draftified 3 times and was unilaterally moved back to mainspace in all of these cases. Looking at Google Translate, the given sources don't seem to establish that this passes NCORP, and a BEFORE search didn't give me any usable English-language coverage either. Someone with knowledge of Swedish may have better luck, but I think it's time that we get this one out of the draftification cycle. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed improvements in the Teahouse as well as with reviewers. I got the suggestion to add "Stub" to the article, which I did and therefore moved it to mainspace again. Please point me in the right direction if I am mismanaging this, but I do not think the stub should be "moved for deletion" I see many similar stub articles with sometimes only the company webpage as reference. For reference look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swedish_company_stubs. I assume the stub tag is included for this reason. For example, I have included multiple references in addition to the company's annual report. As for notability, the company is no Apple or Microsoft, but it a rather large company in Sweden employing around 1,600 people all over Europe. Again for reference, one can compare it to the other companies in the Swedish stub category.

Lastly I think the stub article is written in a a factual manner based on publicly available information. I have complied with disclosure requirements of wikipedia.Gustav Addnode (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Addnode, it was explicitly pointed out to you that given your status as a disclosed paid editor, you should be submitting articles through AfC, as is considered best practice; you still decided to move it back to mainspace three times, which essentially constitutes move warring. As for notability, it is only determined by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources – if the references don't establish this, the article cannot be included. It's true that we have lots of company articles that don't establish notability, but that is not an argument for adding another one to that list. Finally, a stub tag does not impact the notability requirements and I don't read the teahouse comments as a suggestion to add one and then move to mainspace. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised to add the stub tag, not explicitly move it to mainspace afterwards. I can see that I misunderstood this, as I thought that the stub tag implied "WIP" and didnt need to go thorugh that process. I am new to Wiki and still learing. The correct thing would have been to add the tag, and then submitted it through AfC again. Again, as for notability, there is coverage in independent adn reliable sources - and as you stated, maybe someone with knowledge in Swedish can help evaluate/confirm this. So, instead of deleting a factual article, moving it to AfC with the stub tag might be the best way forward? Thanks for taking the time to discuss and help with the article.Gustav Addnode (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Addnode people who comment on this AfD may decide to !vote for draftification if they think that's the best option. As a sidenote, I don't see where someone recommended adding a stub tag, or indeed, that this implied a work in progress. Quisqualis merely said that a WP:stub may be all that is possible. As for the sources currently in the article:

is a company profile and doesn't constitute significant coverage.
is published by the company and hence not independent. Three is an interview, which are usually not suitable for establishing notability.
is a routine announcement, essentially a re-hashed press release.
is a two-sentence article – again a routine announcement.
is another announcement

In short, I don't see anything here that is sufficient to establish notability, I'm afraid. Blablubbs|talk 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! The sources are similar to other company pages (which, I agree, does not have to mean that they are independent/notable). However I think that the combination of articles , interviews and some public company information is a solid base for this stub article. It provides useful information but lacks the breadth and coverage expected from an "full" wiki article - for that reason it should be classified as a stub. According to wiki guidlines a stub should only be deleted if it has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability - which i do not think applies to the discussed article. On your sidenote, I was refering to that specific comment "stub may be all that is possible", which implies that a stub is a suitable form of the article. As for the WIP, that was my own interpretation of the word in the context. Thanks for the clarification about the voting process.Gustav Addnode (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Addnode, other stuff exists regarding the sources on other articles, and interviews normally are not independent sources, nor is "public company information". As WP:NCORP and WP:GNG clearly state, the company needs significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources to be presumed notable enough for inclusion. I will avoid !voting in this AfD as I have don't have the ability to run a search in Swedish, but I'd still like to address some of the points you make. Java Hurricane 07:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are a lot of articles on the company in Swedish on Google News search, e.g. in Computer Sweden in January 2020 and March 2020, and in other publications, but they are almost all recycled press releases (e.g. the two I've linked here). There is a passing mention here; I've no idea about the reliability of the source but it's not WP:SIGCOV. The best I've found is this article in Svenska Dagbladet, which appears to be a fairly in-depth independent financial analysis, and the source is respectable, but one swallow does not a summer make. Of course it's not in the current article, despite being more reliable than the sources that are, because it recommends not buying their shares! I got bored after four pages of press releases but somebody more diligent might be able to find something more. Wham2001 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– I think this might also be a reliable source Aktiespararna (perhaps even more relevant than the stock analysis from Svd?). Another one: Avanza These articles are meeting the requirements WP:SIGCOVGustav Addnode (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Addnode: Avanza might be, but it's definitely not sufficient for establishing notability on its own – Aktiesparma is not coverage, but a mere company listing. As a sidenote: Could you start indenting your comments? Thanks. Blablubbs|talk 17:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– If not on its own, maybe together with the other referenced news sources (computer sweden and DI). Gustav Addnode (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DI and Computer Sweden sources are recycled press releases - they're of no value for establishing notability and shouldn't be used unattributed in the article. I agree with Blablubbs about Aktiesparma - it's a routine listing. I don't know anything about Avanza but on the face of it the source appears to be an investment guide produced by the publishing arm of an investment management company. So far, AFAICT, there are two usable sources (Avanza and SvD), both of them investment guides. I wouldn't consider that enough to meet WP:GNG. Wham2001 (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails to satisfy WP:NCOMPANY or WP:ORGCRIT as they have not been discussed in reliable sources significantly. @Gustav Addnode, I don’t think it’s fair for you to get paid & then come here with a WP:COI then proceed to inundate us with your problems. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, to this point, has been added to this article to make me think this company passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A BEFORE search reveals nothing more significant than what is provided. If the company wants to have an article on Wikipedia then maybe their PR team needs to get some reliable media sources to write independent pieces giving the company significant coverage. That's a start. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to show notability of the subject. Lord Grandwell (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2021 (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.