Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypergiant Industries


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hypergiant Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional article, unwisely accepted from AfC. The list of the advisory board is half the article, and is not encyclopedic content. The references are either promotional interviews with the founder, as for the first 3, or mere notices of funding. Neither type of reference meets WP:NCORP  DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, if it's overly promotional, that can be addressed through the regular/normal editing process.
 * Popular Mechanics
 * Dallas News
 * Gigabit Magazine
 * Silicon Hill News
 * Statesman
 * Houston Chronicle
 * Inc
 * Silicon Review-- Isaidnoway (talk)  11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Submitted a new edit request on 12/23 to improve the article. The request includes new sources detailing a recent partnership and products. Open to additional suggestions to improve the article. Thank you. DISCLOSURE: I proposed the edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Hypergiant. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines. Justin Goldsborough (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it is promotional (please delete the advisory board section - Wikipedia is not your "pitchbook"), however these good RS are SIGCOV, Popular Mechanics, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle.  Per the article, and a google search, there is a lot of other RS on this company - maybe overhyped, but it is getting coverage. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interview with the CEO about the company in the 'The Silicon Review'. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An article that relies extensively on an "interview" fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 19:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and 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. Not a single one of the references mentioned in the article or here meets the criteria for establishing notability.
 * This from Dallas News is based on an announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Chron is churnalism and based entirely on an interview with the co-founder/CEO and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from American INNO is based entirely on an interview with the CEO/co-founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from D Magazine is another example of promotional churnalism, based entirely on an interview with ex-colleagues of Lamm, the the co-founder/CEO, or with Lamm himself. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Entrepreneur is based on an interview with an investor. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from VentureBeat] is entirely based on information provided by a co-founder, Copps. Fails WP:ORGIND.s
 * This from Adweek is a single line, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
 * This from BizJournals is based on an interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Dallas Innovates is based on a company announcement and interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Statesman is based on a company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This next from Dallas Innovates is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Fast Company is based on a company announcement and interview, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Chron is based on a company announcement and quotations from the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * This third from Dallas Innovates is based on an interview with an investor, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Popular Mechanics is based on an interview with a company VP and fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Gigabit is based on an company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Silicon Hills is based on a news statement from the CEO and a news release from the company, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Statesman is based on a company announcement and an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Houston Chronicle is based on a number of company announcements with quotations from the CEO and from one of their corporate partners, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from INC is based on an interview with the CEO, fails [[WP:ORGIND]
 * This from Silicon Reviews is entirely based on an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
 * It is clear that the company has an active marketing department and is capable of securing interviews for their CEO and of getting press to cover their announcements, but none of that coverage meets the criteria for establishing notability. As an aside, the CEO likely meets the criteria for notability.  HighKing++ 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Commment. Quite a few of the above sources are profiles on the company by an independent and reputable source, but where the RS happens to also speak to the CEO, which you consider to be a failure of WP:ORGIND. But a fail of ORGING is really where the the RS is a company press releases/marketing release repackaged as an article (which many of the above are not).  You note that the company CEO could have their own BLP from the above RS, which again, goes to the independance of many of the above RS.
 * As a company, there is plenty of coverage from good RS like this Bloomberg which do fail ORGIND (e.g. they are from fund raisings); however, to dismiss interviews of the CEO and covereage of the company like this in Popular mechanics or Fast Company or Dallas Morning News (and more) is not correct. On that basis, almost every RS that ever spoke to an CORP's CEO would be deleted from Wikipedia as a fail of ORGIND, which of course makes no sense. Britishfinance (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Response, the question is not whether the sources are reliable and independent, but whether the content is independent. Therefore, lets assume that the sources are RS and from publishers that are "functionally" independent. But. From WP:ORGIND, articles 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. "Coverage" that relies entirely on information provided by the CEO, the company, their investors, their partners, their customers, or any other "connected" sources may not be used for the purposes of establishing notability. Please note - the interviews, etc, are not "dismissed" for the purposes of citations supporting information contained within the article. Repackaged company announcements and press releases as well as articles that do not contain any Independent Content are "dismissed" for the purposes of establishing notability. It's all explained in WP:NCORP and the WP:ORGIND section.  HighKing++ 14:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Take the Popular Mechanics example, the article quotes from third party experts saying: "It's not just trees that ingest carbon dioxide, however. Most breathable air in the world originates from the ocean, "where high levels of nutrients fertilize large blooms of algae," writes Scott Denning, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.". In the Houston Chronicle piece, they quote third-party experts such as: "Essentially, artificial intelligence and machine learning turn massive amounts of imagery into useful insights, said Chad Brinkley, CEO of Satellite & Extraterrestrial Operations & Procedures, or SEOPS. He said such technologies could enhance the company’s offerings and help it develop new services. “It’s the difference between giving someone a stack of paperwork and asking them to sort through it themselves,” he said in an email, “and taking that paperwork, summarizing the key insights, and giving them concrete actions to follow through on.""  These are proper pieces by good RS on the company, that interview both the CEO and other experts on the business; not a fail of WP:ORGIND. The amount of coverage on this company in a general Google news search here is considerable (although much of it would fail ORGIND). Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Response What Independent Content is there *about* the company? The comment you've selected from Scott Denning is generic in that it is a comment about CO2 and the air but says nothing about the company. Similarly, the comment selected from "third-party experts" is from the CEO of SEOPS - the company acquired by Hypergiant (the acquisition of SEOPS is the subject of the entire article), therefore is a "connected" source. Again, nobody is saying that these article are not "proper pieces by good RS" - I've explained (at length) that the article fail the criteria for establishing notability because they do not contain any "Independent Content". Finally, pointing me to a Google Search result because of "considerable" coverage is not an acceptable argument at AfD.  HighKing++ 19:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Response I am only trying to show how extreme your reading of ORGIND is (to the point of wikilawyering imho). This interpretation is needed to discount a material number of refs from good RS on this company. The acceptance that this RS would satisfy a BLP of its CEO is also not really consistent that notability is not being met; there are many cases where an article on a company and/or its CEO is acceptable, and splitting hairs over which one it should be is also not productive. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Response OK, if you believe my interpretation is "extreme" and/or "wikilawyering", it would be more helpful if you could point to which parts of the WP:NCORP guidelines you believe I am quoting/interpreting in error/incorrectly. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND are fairly easy to understand. BLPs have different guidelines (apples/pears) but crucially the CEO has a number of notable achievements which is why I believe the CEO might pass. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep WP:BEFORE by Britishfinance produced reliable sources. SIGCOV, Popular Mechanics, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle. Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. is likely the best source, but it is in the end half-rewritten press release, half intereview quotes. What independent, reliable source discusses this company in-depth? No mentions in Scholar/Book, not surprising since this is a 2018 establishment. It can hardly have any impact. Thus, promotional entry, and WP:TOOSOON. Come back in few years when you have some awards, and coverage that wasn't paid for. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The company has been able to get a lot of it's publicity echoed various media outlets. However, I'm having difficulty finding much in the way of clearly encyclopedic information about the company. I quickly trimmed back the article, removing what I believe is simply WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Good job; I have also re-wrote this (meant to do when I !voted above), and added the references discussed (re Popular Mechanics). Having one of your products listed as a "world-changing idea" in Fast Company and reviewed by Popular Mechanics (who are a very well regarded science magazine - and not fools or an RS that allows itself to be abused for unfounded marketing) is notable.  In addition, the partnership that Booz Allen announced with them is also notable given that Booz Allen is one of the world's biggest global consultancies (there is more RS behind this partnership that I am looking at but it is behind a paywall). Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given you and I have now re-written this article, I removed the UPE; I will add this article to my watchlist in case UPE returns. Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. As well as the ones above, I have added more sources, including D Magazine (more info on their founding), designboom (their algae HVAC unit was covered in Designbooms top tech predictions for 2020). Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (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.