Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoFlow Technology


 * 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) 16:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

EcoFlow Technology

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

Although they are well-formatted, sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:NCORP says, "specific topic[s] related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". Indeed, all of the in-depth sources focus on the company's products. We need sources focusing on, say, the history of the company. Ovinus (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hello, I am the creator of the page. This page was approved in AFC by The_Most_Comfortable_Chair, so maybe he can also comment. Although I see your point that the majority of citations are about the products and not the company, there are still 3 existing citations that are about the company, which are:
 * https://www.repubblica.it/green-and-blue/2021/09/16/news/ecoflow_ora_la_casa_va_a_batteria-317796195/
 * https://www.dealstreetasia.com/stories/ecoflow-gl-ventures-245272/
 * https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Startups/Chinese-tech-startups-flock-to-foreign-crowdfunding-platforms
 * I have also searched and found these additional citations about the company, some include history:
 * https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/02/ecoflow-glamping-portable-battery/ - very in depth and has company history about founders, etc
 * https://mattiadistasi.com/the-most-funded-kickstarter-2021-12-million-ecoflow-delta/
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-09/sequoia-backed-battery-unicorn-prepares-for-ipo-as-demand-spikes
 * https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/ecoflow-raises-4m/
 * https://www.explorebit.io/article/EcoFlow%2520raises%2520over%2520USD%2520100M
 * Thanks. Dcbkue (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting for other editors that Dcbkue has been paid for this article, according to their user page. Thank you for commenting here. TechCrunch is generally not okay for notability (see WP:TECHCRUNCH) because it's difficult to establish independence. Mattiadistasi.com is self-published. The Bloomberg piece fails the "completely independent" requirement of our notability guidelines for companies. www.explorebit.io looks like a meh quality source to me, but it's also fairly routine—just a funding announcement. The Deal Street Asia one is paywalled so I'm unable to assess it, as is the Nikkei Asia one, but from the intro they look like plain old funding articles. I can't assess the Italian one for independence, either, since it's paywalled. Thank you for the additional sources, though, and other editors may have a more charitable view of them. Ovinus (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I have been paid to post it and it has been fully disclosed per the guidelines, but it is not against policy to comment as long as I have disclosed my association.
 * - For the Italian article search Google by clicking here and then click open the article and you can read it. You can use Google translate to read it. In fact, its got lot's company info and history.
 * - Re: WP:TECHCRUNCH. it says "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing." Both Techcrunch articles are by staff writers. Check their bios. These would be considered reliable as they are not contributors and they do not have a conflict of interest.
 * - mattiadistasi.com/ : is not self published! why and how you came up to this conclusion?
 * -Bloomberg: since it was behind paywall, how did you come to this conclusion? In fact this is a good article and has info about the company. You can read it also read the full article on Yahoo here.
 * - Deal Street Asia - You can create a free account to read it.
 * - asia.nikkei.com - You can also register for free here and read it. This is a pretty in depth article about them. Dcbkue (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another article with no significant information that exists only to bestow reputation upon its subject by restating its product launches and funding.  FalconK (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Falcon Kirtaran I want to point out that none of these 3 articles below are about funding or launching:
 * techcrunch.com 1st article
 * repubblica.it/
 * techcrunch.com/ 2nd article
 * But even if an article is about a launch or funding as long it has info about the company, it is acceptable:
 * For example nikkei.com has a few paragraphs about the company and its founder.
 * This one mattiadistasi.com/t although the title is about Kickstarter funding, the article has a lot of info about the company and its products.
 * The bloomberg article which you can read here has a lot of info about the company, don't let "IPO" in the title mislead you and read the full article.
 * In addition, I have found some new articles for everyone's consideration:
 * https://technologytimes.pk/2022/09/14/ecoflow-to-introduce-home-backup-energy-solutions-to-address-power-needs-in-nigeria/
 * theverge.com/ This articles provides good history about company's product lines.
 * guardian.ng/ Has a bit of info about the company and its history. Dcbkue (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The techcrunch coverage is not great. Besides often being a very low quality source, the parts of these articles that are not routine coverage or quoting press releases are mostly quotes from company executives.  This is really minimal.  Information just that the company exists and goes about its business does not establish notability; neither do product reviews.  There is a high bar because the business press gushes about almost every flash in the pan, but a company isn't notable until it does something to make history.  FalconK (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. techcrunch.com/ 1st article has several paragraphs that are not quotations and are about the company, paragraphs 1, 2,3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15.
 * The 2nd article https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/ecoflow-raises-4m/ has also many sections not about funding or quotation, including paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16. Dcbkue (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is factually incorrect at least in part. In particular, the first few paragraphs you mention in the second article are exactly about promotion, but several others are instead announcements of price; combined with the highly positive point of view, this article is more product placement than objective journalism.  A Wikipedia article isn't a trophy a company gets after it invests enough in publicity; it's a thing that comes about when a company has become significant enough that third-party sources take objective notice of it.  FalconK (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the TechCrunch writer was paid to write a promotional article? if not what exactly are you saying? if someone talks positive about a product is that bad? Also, I hope you can see that the 2 Techcrunch articles are written by different writers and if you click on their profiles, you would see that they are credible staff writers with lot's of other writing. Dcbkue (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. in case it was not obvious, here is my keep vote based on my comments above. Dcbkue (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete not the greatest sources, most are promotional/mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you seen my comments above. Several of these are not mentions. Also which specific articles are promotional? can you point them out? By 'promotional" do you mean they have been paid for by the company? Have you checked Google news? I do not see how 267 articles that come up in Google news can all be promotional. Is there any issue with the 2 Techcrunch articles? theverge.com is also very detailed and has company history info. Dcbkue (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * see below. I didn't see much we can use for sourcing, it's mostly stories about a certain product they have or mentions of the company in relation to something else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment. Google news returns 267 news articles when you search the company name. Most are product reviews. Although there are several that I pointed out above about the company, another idea would be to revise this page title and content to "Ecoflow (Batteries)" and make the page about the products rather than the company, because of the massive amount of articles that exist about the products. What do you think? Dcbkue (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And here are additional new articles to consider:
 * bnews.vn - A few sections are about the company
 * diendandoanhnghiep.vn/ - A few sections are about the company
 * basic-tutorials.com/ - indepth review of the products but also has a section about the company
 * ladepeche.ma/- indepth review of the products but also has a section about the company Dcbkue (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two that meet the criteria. We require deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the *company* and also 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. For example, the TechCrunch article fails ORGIND because it is probable that *all* of the information in the article was provided during a call with TechCrunch by Wang and there is nothing to show that the information is clearly attributable to a different source unaffiliated to the subject company.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely accurate or the case. You say " References cannot rely only on information provided by the company," but when a journalist does their due diligence, verifies all information and writes an article, then it is acceptable. It should be assumed that credible journalists and publications do their own research to confirm the reliability of the information and then publish. Another example is that press releases are not acceptable, but if a publication picks up on it, does research or calls the company for an interview and then writes their own piece on it then it is acceptable, even tough article originally was provided, by the company, but once the journalist has done their research and written a new article, it is no longer considered primary. If what you say was the case, then 99% Corporate citations would not be acceptable. i,e Apple announces a new version of iPhone. Can no citation be used, because all articles are based on a press release of the company?? You also have not specifically stated why these are not acceptable:
 * basic-tutorials.com/ - ladepeche.ma/- diendandoanhnghiep.vn/ - bnews.vn -theverge.com/ - guardian.ng/ - bloomberg  - repubblica.it/ - mattiadistasi - explorebit.io Many of these have company coverage and some very indepth.
 * Dcbkue (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In order for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability, it must meet ORGIND - that is, it must contain "Independent Content" (see above). An article that relies solely on information provided by the subject with no commentary/analyis that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject has no "Independent Content". Saying something along the lines of "but the journalist is credible and naturally confirmed the reliability of the information" is an assumption unless it is clearly evident from the content. Hence the precise wording of ORGIND. Also, be aware that there is a difference between sources used to support information within an article and sources used to establish notability. Any citation from a reliable source may be used (press releases, etc) to support information within an article - it doesn't mean those same citations meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 13:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, would you say or agree that it may be better to convert this page to a product page rather than a company pages, because there are over 250 articles available about the products of the company? Dcbkue (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there certainly appears to be a number of reviews of their products and there is a distinct possibility that at least one of their products has garnered sufficient independent analysis/review to meet NCORP criteria for notability.  HighKing++ 13:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - while I understand and appreciate the arguments put forth by the article's creator, the delete arguments above are the more applicable. Onel 5969  TT me 12:42, 22 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.