Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVie (company) (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

EVie (company)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

extremely small exrtemely local company--the only reason I can figure out for it getting any press attention at all is because its so absurdly insignificant.  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete — Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them + what said. Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the responses to the first nomination and the sources added by at then. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Local coverage only - fails WP:AUD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. Non-notable.   scope_creep Talk  11:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It has received coverage in national news - see the BBC article - and significant coverage in regional news - many of the sources are regional, covering the whole Channel Islands region. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * * Furthermore, it has received coverage in an international electric mobility news source: https://www.electrive.com/2020/01/21/channel-island-jersey-installs-first-e-car-club-evie/, as cited in the article. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to say that it is slightly ridiculous that this article has been renominated for deletion just four days after a consensus decision was reached to keep the article. This is in contravention of WP:RENOM which states at least six months should be left, especially if there is no "new" reason for renomination, which in both cases is an alleged lack of sources. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not call this national news. Every story that BBC Jersey runs online is published on bbc.co.uk, but that doesn't mean it has had any national exposure such as being featured on the www.bbc.co.uk/news home page. That article is clearly based on an Evie news release and doesn't constitute WP:SECONDARY coverage, so I would say does not contribute towards WP:NCORP. The piece in Electrive is based on the BBC Jersey and ITV Channel Islands coverage and the Evie website as can be seen at the bottom of the article. It adds nothing to that coverage other than the author's comment 'by then, we would expect to see some charging infrastructure' - I wouldn't count that as secondary coverage. Arguably, Electrive may fall under 'media of limited interest and circulation' per WP:AUD - it reaches 20,000 'experts in electric mobility'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete — Does not meet WP:COMPANY criteria. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 16:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep- It has coverage from both national and local news and those are reliable sources. It meets WP:NCORP guidelines. It should be kept. Mommmyy (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi which references meet NCORP guidelines?  HighKing++ 13:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.
 * This from ChannelEye is a puff piece based entirely on a Q&A interview with the founder with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from BBC News is based on a company announcement, same day as ITV News and this electrive.com article. No "Independent Content", the three articles regurgitate the same information provided by the company, they fail WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Bailiwick Express is another pre-launch puff piece based entirely on an interview with company executives and other stakeholders, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from ITV.com is based on a tweet from the company showing the bikes arriving. No attributed journalist. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
 * Another from the Bailiwick Express with no attributed journalist, based entirely on information provided by the company with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV.
 * ITV News, no attributed journalist, reads like a status update from the company, total length 3 sentences and a quote, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Yet another from Bailiwick Express, also reads like a status update, appears to be based on tweets and other information provided by the company, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND
 * Final ITV News "article", no attributed journalist, 5 sentences, third sentence starts with "EVie says...", fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
 * We don't care about the volume of mentions or "articles", we need quality in-depth articles with "Independent Content", journalists or somebody within the article has to provide their own opinion, analysis, etc and don't just create more noise from the company's echo chamber. Topic fails WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.