Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Warning Labs


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Early Warning Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article was first created as a draft by a company employee who disregarded repeated requests to allow it to go through AfC, and moved it to mainspace. I do not see that WP:CORPDEPTH is met – sources are mainly focused on their product, an app connected to the ShakeAlert system, and there is no coverage of the company by independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology,  and California. bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep According to WP:ATD "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it" - It is discouraged but not forbidden for a COI article to be published direct to the main space. All required disclosures were made including on the article and user talk page. After contributing to many other articles and seeing the extreme lack of citations and notability, it is quite shocking that this article is being delayed given its neutrality, notability and citations. I have tirelessly asked for guidance via the channels available here and the article reflected that via revisions. Upon receiving auto-confirmed status, I determined it acceptable (and respectful of volunteer reviewers time) to publish the article.  @Bonadea has not provided concrete evidence why an auto-confirmed user cannot publish a COI article if all the required disclosures are performed and article meets minimum notability guidelines as determined by the author. The appropriate procedure in the spirit of Wikipedia is WP:ATD-T @Bonadea should have respected my decision and instead contributed to the article or added template’s to the page suggesting additional citations, revisions, expansions, etc to allow the community to improve the article. These tags have already been added - This AFD should be reversed according to WP:ATD-T  EricFishers11 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unclear what "respect my decision" means here. I did respect your decision to move the article to mainspace. When an article is created in mainspace or moved there from draftspace, it is eligible for deletion if the community should consider it non-notable. (That applies to articles accepted by AfC reviewers as well, by the way.) This AfD discussion was opened because in my view the sources do not show how the company is notable; if by "my decision" you mean your own assessment about its notability, it makes little sense to say that anyone else should "respect [your] decision". Nobody gets to "decide" unilaterally that a topic is notable, and since a) notability criteria are not always straightforward to a very new editor and b) you were paid to create this, it would be a more constructive attitude for you to welcome an outside, impartial evaluation of your company's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers EricFishers11 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable spam. The policy is very clear: COI editors should only create articles through AFC. Attempting an end run around the proper process by arguing semantics is not acceptable behavior. Bonadea's actions are completely in the right. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If your assertion is true, then WP:ATD should have been observed instead an immediate AfD EricFishers11 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT. The sources are all WP:PRIMARY materials or interviews which lack independence from the subject. Further, none of the sources have in-depth coverage of the company itself, but are primarily about a product of the company, the Shakealert app. Per WP:ORGSIG, notability is not inherited. Sources must have independent significant coverage of the company itself and not merely a product of the company. See detailed source analysis below. Additionally, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no independent secondary sources. Not seeing a viable article based on what has currently been published. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would not recommend moving this back to draft based on lack of supporting evidence in secondary sources, and suggest outright deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The primary source tag has already been added to the article to address WP:BEFORE
 * See: C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
 * :1.) If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
 * 2.) If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article EricFishers11 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @, you have misunderstood WP:ATD which is a guide of actions one should consider as an alternative to deletion under certain circumstances; none of which apply in this case. WP:ATD-T is applied only to "fixable problems", and as I stated in my above argument, these are not fixable problems. Likewise, WP:ATD-I does not apply here either because a topic without qualifying sources has no way to successfully incubate. Placing tags to alert editors to the problem of primary sources and non-independent sources is not going to solve the fundamental underlying problem which is that independent secondary sources just simply do not exist. Likewise, a topic without secondary independent coverage is not able to incubate in draft space. Deletion is really the only policy based choice in this case.4meter4 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the support resources, including the IRC chat this article had between 3-5 good secondary articles and could be improved. This is not a flagrant disregard of the guidelines and rules. I still maintain this should be published. EricFishers11 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please see the source analysis below which highlights issues with every single source per our policies at WP:ORG. None of the secondary sources are interview free; which we require per our written policy at WP:MULTSOURCES (see SECONDARY section) where "interviews by executives" are explicitly labeled as PRIMARY sources even if they are in a publication like the Los Angeles Times or a a respected podcast. The problem with the secondary sources here is they all contain interviews with EWL's founder Josh Bashioum, which immediately disqualifies them as sources for proving notability per our written policy. With zero secondary sources independent from the subject, there are no good sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Irregardless it still qualifies under "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization"  as the coverage documents the progress of the implementation of ShakeAlert and the companies role from 2014 to present. EricFishers11 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here I also have to disagree. None of the sources are about Early Warning Labs; and only provide indirect coverage of the company. The ongoing media coverage is not about Early Warning Labs at all but about the ShakeAlert warning system of which EWL is only one small component, with some attention given to the ShakeAlert app created by EWL (but not only their app; as other apps have been made by other companies). We have no sources with in-depth coverage of the company itself. In fact EWL is only mentioned in passing in most of the sources; even in the sources about their app. As I stated above, articles about the product made by a company do not confer notability onto the company itself. We need coverage directly and in detail about EWL, not the ShakeAlert App the company created per WP:ORGSIG. The notability of a product doesn't extend to the company that makes it per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability fallacies#Notability is inherited.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's non sequitur, EWL is regularly mentioned in nearly every article as the facilitator of the technology. Also, a "quote" is not considered an interview. Out of curiosity, what content would you remove to create a "stub" for publishing? EricFishers11 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoted texts are taken from interviews. You are not going to find any support here for that kind of argument. I am an AFD patroller who has worked regularly at AFD for years. This is the way WP:CORPDEPTH is routinely applied at AFD. What we really need here are sources about Early Warning Labs as a company which provide significant coverage. Sources with an independent analysis of the company or a critique of the company or even a history of the company (without quoted text from an executive) would be particularly useful in demonstrating notability. On a side note, the sources here would potentially work better towards creating an article on the app itself (as these sources are directly about the app); although some of the independence issues are still a problem.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s not a bad idea to create an article for the app. Could this be resolved publishing EWL as a Stub and point to the app page? EricFishers11 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. There's not enough evidence of independent secondary sources to even allow for a stub. We have have very strict policies regarding our inclusion criteria for organizations. However, you could create an article on the app in draft space and potentially have it approved through WP:AFC. Once approved it would be moved to mainspace. Once that happens you could create a WP:REDIRECT at Early Warning Labs to the article on the app. That probably would be your best way forward based on the current sources available. It's possible an article on the app would pass WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Products have less hoops to jump though than companies when it comes to notability. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the above that the articles listed on the site, with the exception of the CBS one, are 1) about the program and the software, not the company OR 2) namecheck the company. Although there are not enough sources for them to have a page themselves, one or more of the sources here could be used to add them to Earthquake_warning_system, although since they didn't do it alone it would be only fair to include others. In some cases a single source listed here could cover more than one. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ I don't think that is the best article to contain that information which is about earthquake warning systems generally; not the specific one used by this app. We have an article on the specific earthquake warning system that the app uses where it is already mentioned at ShakeAlert.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ MyShake is talked about in both, so in effect the information is already in both but it isn't the main topic in either. I think any important information will need to be added to both as long as the software is described in both. It's not ideal, and presumably one article could simply point to the other, but that will take more thought. I'd say: if the editor wishes to add information from this article it should be added to both, for now. Lamona (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * MyShake is a completely different app with zero connection to EWL which was developed by the University of California, Berkley. It is integrated into multiple earthquake systems globally (it can be used in Japan for example). This is not true of EWL's app which is only part of the ShakeAlert system and can only be used on the West Coast of the United States. There is no reason to cover EWL's app in a section on MyShake as they are two different things.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @4meter4 - MyShake qualifies under both ShakeAlert and Earthquake warning system there may be a fit somewhere else in Earthquake warning system but I dont see a good fit as written. EricFishers11 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I've seen this company mentioned online frequently and just looked them up on Wikipedia. I saw it was up for deletion. My 2 cents: It may be light on secondary sources but the company and their app has had significant coverage looking online. Just looking at their YouTube page it has lots of coverage including a documentary on them from the Discovery Channel which has to count for something and I found this about them in the New Yorker:
 * https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/theres-an-earthquake-coming 73.158.238.77 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — 73.158.238.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Whether a source is online or not has no connection to whether it is primary or secondary. The New Yorker article you link to is not about the company, it's an article about a related topic which contains a trivial mention of the company name. --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Discovery Channel coverage (viewable here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuWPI-A9COQ) is about the ShakeAlert system as a whole, and the coverage of Early Warning Labs in the documentary is not about the company itself but their app through an interview with EWL's director. It's not independent as an interview. And it's not significant coverage of the company itself. I have added both of these sources to the source analysis table. 4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @4meter4 You are incorrect - there is absolutely NO mention of the app QuakeAlert - which is actually just one of the offerings of the company. This documentary is showing their hardware system automate a fire station, nowhere does it mention "QuakeAlert" the app. Perhaps you are confused what the company actually does. EricFishers11 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, a demonstration of another product of the company in the context of an interview is still not independent; nor is it about the company but another product of the company. So the problem is still the same.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added Early Warning Labs Ironically our project with Wikipedia is there — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricFishers11 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You may have misread the source. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/16/17698514/wikipedia-streetwear-collab says that a "streetware brand and crystal shop" called Advisory Board Crystals collaborated with Wikipedia in 2018 (which does not make them notable!), and that they had previously released some clothing together with Early Warning Labs. No connection between WP and EWL, no info about when the EWL hoodie was produced, and the “Knowledge is power and awareness is survival" slogan was on the WP themed clothing, not the EWL hoodie. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some new sources were added - 5,6,8,9 EricFishers11 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added them to the source analysis above. None of these work towards establishing notability of EWL.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets move this back to drafts then. Ill focus on Draft:QuakeAlertUSA as suggested here. @4meter4 Which of the articles listed above would support that? EricFishers11 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately neither of us has the authority to unilaterally make that decision now that so many other editors have participated here. The AFD will need to be evaluated and closed by a non-participating neutral administrator. It’s up to that admin whether this can be moved back to draft and retooled towards the app. If and when that happens, I can examine the sources again and make suggestions. I am not entirely confident that it would pass GNG even when retooled because of the interview component of many of the sources. It’s going to be a borderline call, and I can’t say for sure how other editors will respond for sure. I really do think you should go through the WP:AFC approval process because that is going to ultimately help you to develop a passable article.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I think it has been pretty conclusively established in this mess of a discussion that this company does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. EricFishers11 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to Admin The article has begun to receive extensive community edits with new sources and citations hopefully WP:HEY can come into play here - Irregardless of the outcome (Delete or Keep) of this AfD I feel its would benefit the article to move back to "Draft" status to allow the community to continue to improve it.  It can then be submitted via AfC once ready. EricFishers11 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its a bit premature to make this comment. Some substantial copy editing has occurred by one editor, but only one additional source has been added, which like the other references, does not provide in-depth coverage of Early Warning Labs as a company and consists of an interview with an employee of USGS about a test run of ShakeAlert. USGS has a close partnership with EWL; and therefore this source lacks independence from the company. I have added the source to the table. 4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been revised quite a bit more. EricFishers11 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that. More sources with the same overall problems; this is WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing here which has in-depth coverage of the company as an institution. Everything relates to products of the company or projects related to ShakeAlert with which they are involved. Further, many of these sources are more interviews with EWL's founder which lack independence. I'm still not seeing anything that would pass WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s clearly of interest to the community:
 * Pageviews 10/7 - 10/27
 * EWL: 694
 * ShakeAlert: 950 EricFishers11 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that nearly all of those page views would be from just you, me, and 7&6=thirteen and those looking at the article for this AFD. (I myself have probably opened this article over a hundred times in that window of time) Regardless, page view statistics are not a valid argument per WP:POPULARPAGE.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional article, source assessment above shows that WP:NCORP is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete neither WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG are met. I don't think that draftifying would be particularly helpful as simply re-writing isn't the only issue and the subject doesn't seem to have the coverage needed to pass AFC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, and afterwards, due to the tone of the article's creator, I would advise to salt it so as to not waste other editor's time again. Onel 5969  TT me 12:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with onel5969 regarding salting the article. GPL93 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There are now 36 sources - many of which are independent news organizations. It's not the article it was when nominated for deletion. Sadly, this is a better article than many on Wikipedia. It is informative and useful to readers.  It is not written like an advertisement or promotional. It really seems as if the COI is more important than article quality. It easily meets WP:GNG IMHO.  I still maintain irregardless of the outcome (Delete or Keep) of this AfD I feel its would benefit the article to move back to "Draft".  The discussion of it being "salted" is a bit excessive. EricFishers11 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand the viewpoint that this article can seem a bit promotional in describing the corporation's products, however, it has significant coverage of sources that meet the requirements per WP:HEY. I feel like a clean-up is required of the article though, but thats not to say it doesn't meet notability.  GR 86  (📱) 17:43, 30 October 2022 (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.