Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn Mobility


 * 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. Largely per User:JamesBWatson, who lays out an argument that is not rebutted and appears to have the support of many editors. Obviously this discussion has been heavily disrupted by puppetry of some description, but not all "Keep" opinions were of that variety. However, they did not address the points raised by the "Delete" arguments, instead bringing to the table variants of WP:GOOGLEHITS or WP:ITSNOTABLE. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Acorn Mobility

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

 Below, Joseph2302, SmartSE and Timtrent (signature "Fiddle Faddle") raise the question of possible IP-sockpuppetry in this discussion, so I have investigated the three IP addresses used here. 213.229.101.59 and 43.245.164.116 are proxy servers, both operated by the same company, while 99.232.13.165 is a Virtual private network. Considering the editing history of the IP addresses, together with that of the creator of the article, who is indefinitely blocked, I don't think there can be much doubt that the IP addresses are being used (a) to evade a block, and (b) to give the spurious impression of support from several independent editors. It is also possible that the use of three IP addresses that geolocate to three different places may be a deliberate attempt to increase the appearance of being three separate and independent people. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

When this was accepted at WP:AFC it was 'ok', that is it had a better that 60% chance in the accepting reviewer's mind that it would survive a deletion discussion. This is what reviewers are, generally, asked to do.

Today it is a bloated piece of appalling advertorial, probably by a paid editor, certainly with WP:COI. This advert needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your corporation or its products. Use your own web site for that. I could have used speedy deletion, but I want to ensure, if deleted, that any replacement article is so different from this one that it is appropriate here, hence AFD Fiddle   Faddle  08:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:MILL We're not here to record every single business who's only claim to fame is that they exist and do carry on that business. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a fairly sizeable company with large revenue and looks like offices in multiple countries. Received significant coverage. If it's too promotional, edit away. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It is true that the article is promotional, but as the comment above rightly says, that can be dealt with by editing, but, more importantly, there is also no evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is not so easily dealt with.


 * First of all, to answer some points given as reasons for "keep". Wikipedia's notability criteria are not based on such matters as how "sizeable" a company is, or how large its revenue is. It is perfectly possible to propose changes to Wikipedia's notability criteria, but this discussion will be assessed by its closing administrator on the basis of the current guidelines.


 * The majority of the references are links to pieces in very local newspapers (e.g. Keighley News) or, in some cases, in trade publications (e.g. insidermedia.com). Notability (organizations and companies) says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". At first glance, there appear to be a few bits of coverage in more significant publications, such as the Yorkshire Post (a newspaper based in Leeds, which is a significant city, unlike Keighley, though it does not, as its title suggests, cover the whole of Yorkshire) and the Daily Mail (a national newspaper). However, closer examination shows that such coverage is not substantial: for example, an article in the Yorkshire Post merely gives a one-sentence mention of Acorn Mobility, and the Daily Mail article does not even mention Acorn Mobility at all. (The Wikipedia article claims that in the advertisement referred to in the newspaper article, a stairlift made by Acorn is used, but the newspaper article cited as a source does not say so. Even if a source could be found which does say so, the fact that an advertising company happened to use a particular make of stairlift in making an advertisement for a product unrelated to that company would not be evidence of notability of that company.) Many other sources do not actually support significant content of the article either. Most of the news coverage is also just reporting of individual incidents, such as an announcement of a factory closure, in which there are a few mentions of the fact that Acorn is the owner of the company of the company owning the factory.


 * Several of the references are clearly promotional, some directly (encouraging us to buy Acorn products), most more indirectly: for example, several of them are news write-ups of events which are clearly publicity-seeking exercises by the company: you organise some event such as a visit to your business by a local politician, or a donation to a charity, and you make sure you send a press-release to the local newspapers, which are virtually bound to publish them, because that is one of the main ways local papers get copy. Other sources are not independent, such as a page at www.wkeowntrust.co.uk, which begins with the sentence "The William Keown Trust is pleased to announce that we have become partners with leading stair lift manufacturer, Acorn Lifts."


 * All in all, the pattern of references I see is typical of what happens when an article is written by a paid editor, who knows enough about how Wikipedia works to realise that providing dozens of references is a good way of making it look superficially as though the subject is notable. What you do is collect dozens of sources which have some connection with the subject of the article, never mind how significant or relevant the sources are, and scatter then about in the article. Most probably nobody will ever check them all and realise that the references don't actually show notability. See WP:BOMBARD for a longer account of this practice. None at all of the references can be regarded as substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Agree this YP source should be changed or struck out 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A Factory closure constituents a noteworthy event not advertising or similar 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course a factory closure constituents a noteworthy event, and of course it is not advertising. However, a newspaper report on the closure of a factory which just mentions that a particular company owns the company which owns the factory is not substantial coverage of the company which owns the other one, and it is such substantial coverage which is required to show notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Disagree www.wkeowntrust.co.uk promotes the dignity of people with disabilites you are taking the term or partner out of context into a commercial term to strengthen your argunment when in fact there is not one 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that, but what I was saying is that an organisation which regards itself as a "partner" of a business ( in any sense of the word "partner") is connected to that business, and so is not an independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment however they are references and need re ordering or striking out 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The majority references from the Daily Mail and Insidermedia are not local as you cited below 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read all of my comment? I actually stated that the Daily Mail is national, not local, but that the cited Daily Mail article does not even mention Acorn Mobility. As for Insidermedia, I described that as a "trade publications", not as "local". I also don't know what you mean by "majority references", but out of dozens of references, there is one to the Daily Mail and one to Insidermedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment repeating your argument when already covered in other comments 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with the above, the company is not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, as lots of the references are promotional/not reliable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment need more constructive comment here 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep How does it differ from say Acorn Computers? This is a company that appears to be dominant in it's industry. No one else claims such volume of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)  — 99.232.13.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Note this account is a SPA, and appears to be connected to the company. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Acorn computers innovated. Can you demonstrate similar innovation for your company? It's not turnover that matters, but turnover as a proportion of market share might. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they innovated themselves out of business. Why don't you create the Global market share matrix that I believe might support  a notable  reprive.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Found numerous results for Acorn Stairlifts, Mentioned as a commonly known name in article. The page however is very promotional and should be fixed accordingly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you meant by "numerous results"? Do you mean "numerous Google hits" or something similar? If so, mere number of hits is not enough: you need to find hits which are substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. If you have found any of those, please tell us where. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the contributing editors also found numerous results and added them to the article. Numerous results are by no means useful references in the way we require them to be. It is not particularly helpful to state that one has found numerous results without both ensuring that they meet Wikipedia's needs and without adding those that meet our needs to the article. I refer you to 's discussion on references above.  Fiddle   Faddle  20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the numerous results are the cited references inside the article on the Wiki page213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * William Hague on Acorn Stairlifts. "This is a very impressive business and one of the terrific things about it is its success in exporting. More than half of the business is based on export.  This is creating good, skilled jobs for the future, which is a tribute to the staff and management here". Notable performance? 99.232.13.165 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments here. Use ~ at the end of your comments. Please note that the deletion discussion is influenced very rarely by contributions such as that. Wikipedia cares about the quality of the article and the referencing within it. If you can source that quotation correctly and add it to the article in a relevant manner, that would have a bearing on the outcome. Please do not spend your efforts in seeking to obtain a 'keep' outcome in rhetoric, but in good editing practice. Fiddle   Faddle  20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Advertisement about a company which does not meet WP:CORP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Fiddle Faddle, your attack on this page is premature and unjust, see below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Special note: advertising and promotion


 * Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:


 * 1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV


 * 2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article


 * 3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains.


 * Why did we go straight to step 3 ? 99.232.13.165 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If this article is deleted 100's more will need to be. Consistency is Required. 99.232.13.165 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Because if you remove the promotional text and original research, you are left with no evidence of a notable company. If experienced users believed it was worth keeping, they would have been voting keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then we will delete hundreds of others, as, indeed, we are doing on a regular basis. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Please also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument to avoid during a deletion discussion. Do not ever accuse me of attacking anything. I have proposed this article for a deletion discussion. It is being discussed. There will be an outcome. You may or may not like that outcome. Whatever it is, Wikipedia will have been improved. Fiddle   Faddle  22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think your outcome you want is clear from your comments and hiding behind a so called discussion is in itself eroding Wikipedias values been constructive and name particular areas for review and constructive changes not just a general attack on the whole of the article 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The company has some marginal notability, but articles on marginally notable topics that are flooded with trivial awards, unsourced content, promotion, etc. are better off being deleted per WP:TNT. Also, I believe our community standards is that we expect a person or company to get national level sources before an article can be accepted. Does anyone know if there are national level sources about this org? I would also be interested in seeing the references mentioned by that allegedly include claims to notability, so they can be reviewed. If any source, local or not, includes a strong claim to notability, like "Company ______ is famous for ______" that is pretty much an instant Keep. If it is kept, I might spend a but more time to get a quality stub in place. CorporateM (Talk) 22:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Arthritis Foundation offers a commendation to products that are proven to make life easier for those with arthritis and other physical limitations. Read more here] for more information about it if you like. Accorn lifts has recieved this commendation . No other stairlift company seems to have. Dailymail, ITV , and BBC  recently covered an inquest where faulty  acorn lifts where to blame. There are others but these are the most prominent in the very short search I did. Here's a small regional . I'm not going to keep digging. If you're expecting sources in comparison to the Chevy Volt get real. This is a product for disabled folks. This is not a product for everyone.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that an organisation has given a "commendation" to a product does not, in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, have any bearing on the notability of the company producing that product. If you think that should be changed, then you are, of course, free to propose amendments to those guidelines. The reports you mention on the inquest are certainly national coverage, but they are essentially national coverage of the inquest, and while mentions of the company that made the faulty stairlift are included, the articles are not substantially about the company. The fact that a company's product once led to a fatal accident, while certainly newsworthy, does not make that company generally notable. You say "If you're expecting sources in comparison to the Chevy Volt get real. This is a product for disabled folks. This is not a product for everyone." I assume that what you mean by that is something like "of course there aren't substantial sources for this product of interest only to a limited audience, but there's as much coverage as you can expect for such a subject." If you do mean something like that, then the answer is that Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage, not coverage which is "as much as you can expect for a subject which is never going to get substantial coverage". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While this is called a "commendation" it is specifically an award. I provided links to further information on this commendation. To get this commendation it has to meet certain standards and it is tested. These are not mere mentions is passing in the articles about the inquest. You assume? Well don't. Dell doesn't get as much coverage as Apple. Velocity Micro gets less than either. But the standard is wp:corp and a part of that is WP:AUD. WP:AUD makes it clear that the local sources cut it but they do not cut it alone. It's required that at least one international, national, or regional source. The BBC, ITV, and Daily mail source that you argue are about the inquest are more than simple mentions in passing of Acorn mobility. They do constitute significant. One of those along with the local media coverage shows that this is a notable subject.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm done. I just Googled Fiddle Faddle.  Anyone going voluntarily by that name is not worth my time.  I will move onto another client and put this down to experience.  I have a real world life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The joy of irony is that it is lost on those who really ought to understand it. But that is the nature of irony. It seems to me that you have declared a WP:COI with Acorn Mobility being a client of yours. Fiddle   Faddle  08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This doesn't speak of notability as its self published but as for inovation they seem to have been the first to use DC batteries in stairlifts. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Innovation is always excellent, but they must pass WP:CORP to have an article here. A great many things and corporations are innovative; by no means all are notable. Fiddle   Faddle  08:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with (talk) company has much notoriety and innovation unique to them, too fast to deletion, concerns should been raised on talk page keep it and clean up. Theres 1000's more worse213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * Special note: advertising and promotion
 * Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:
 * 1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV
 * 2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article
 * 3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains.
 * Protocol not been followed here guys needs to pass steps 1 and 2 first43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — 43.245.164.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Seems highly likely all the IPs are the same person, or meatpuppets- I believe the closing admin should count them all as 1 user. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. The geolocates all look dodgy as well e.g.  which look to be some form of proxy. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Please also see Sockpuppet investigations/Acorn Publications where suspicions about the activity surrounding this discussion and the article itself have been raised. Fiddle   Faddle  17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There's some type of British Regional award.. "Yorkshire International Trade Award." That accorn stairlifts seems to have won. This seems to be apart of a group of yearly trade awards put on in the UK in various regions by . -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis. I've searched for sources myself in factiva and google news and couldn't find any substantial national coverage of the company. Granted, they are not completely non-notable, but the majority of the sources are local newspapers and most likely originated as press releases from the company itself. At the moment I don't consider WP:CORP to be met. SmartSE (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. Le petit fromage (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Commended for Exporting http://thiis.co.uk/news-snippets/acorn-lifts-two-uk-export-awards-in-one-week.aspx Bretthuk72 (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note this is yet another promotional SPA. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.