Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REE Automotive


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

REE Automotive

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page is undisclosed COI. If necessary, I have off-wiki evidence to back up my assertion. With or without the COI the subject barely scrapes notability, they have a feature in Forbes but the article hasn't been cited here and it's more of the same promotional churnalism. I feel it is wp:too soon for this page. If or when the subject becomes notable a non-conflicted editor can create the page. GDX420 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please do not move articles to draftspace while they are being discussed at AfD. Either draftify the article initially, as described at WP:DRAFTIFY, or let the discussion at AfD play out. As it is, this AfD should either be speedily closed as being in the wrong forum or the draft should be restored to mainspace. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry for my mistake.GDX420 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All: Remove this AfD.
 * "Undisclosed COI"? ... "off-wiki evidence"? Dude: I don't know you, so ... where's the "off-wiki evidence"? Wikipedia is about legitimate references, and the half dozen references with *real* journalists found this company notable enough to write about it. In your next sentence, you wrote "they have a feature in Forbes but the article hasn't been cited here" ... okay, good find! So... instead of issuing threats, why didn't you cite it?! And if it's too churnalistic, why didn't you fix it? I'm the one who created this article, and I had no issues with legitimate fixes because it sounded too "churnalistic" as copy from their site. This page is not wp:too soon: REE is doing novel technological work, has been around for 7 years, and has designs being licensed by major automotive manufacturers. Instead of issuing threats and going after the page because of manufactured beef with the editor (i.e. me, a complete stranger to you), consider revising content in the future. With revisions that I just published, there should be no further discussion of churnalism -- admittedly your *only* valid criticism.
 * Hi . That is correct, I have a mountain of off-wiki evidence which shows that not only is a representative of REE electric vehicles paying you to upload this content, when you say, "I'm the one who created this article" you are in fact lying. You did not write this content. Someone else wrote this content, you just added the awards section and some PR jargon about "coming out of stealth mode" at the client's request. Neither of these amendments is acceptable in encyclopaedia writing. In answer to your question, the reason I am not going to do any work on the page is because if I did that, your employer would essentially be getting two Wikipedians for free, see WP:BOGOF. Bearing that in mind, could you please restore the maintenance tags that you removed so that the page's content issues can be addressed in due course. Also, as a little housekeeping tip, please sign your messages with four tildes. P.S. this conversation would have been better suited to my talk page and not an AfD. Thank you. GDX420 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . No, this discussion should be right here where can see you're up to the same trolling on this page that they've cited you for in the past on your talk page. Telling me 'I'm lying' is a baseless threat, and I will not restore the maintenance tags I removed because there are no COI or Notability issues. I'm not paid and you can see that in my history of contributions to Wikipedia. You are clearly waging a flame war for unstated political purposes, starting with  moving the page to draft _and_ tagging it AfD, which Lord Bolingbroke noted was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The ONLY issue here that should be discussed is the one you initially flagged, and that's whether this page is suitable for AfD. It's not. According to the four Wikipedia deletion criteria (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not), REE Automotive did not violate the last three. I agree with you that it violated the original research criterion (due to about a half dozen biased/subjective adjectives which I removed yesterday), but that has been fixed, as I noted above in my prior comment. From that same Wikipedia neutral point of view bullet, "If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first," this article is far from beyond help, and you made no effort to fix POV first: i.e. you didn't follow the Wikipedia guideline you're claiming to follow. Your main contribution here is to weaponize AfD policy. You also mentioned--but did not cite--a Forbes quote/article on REE Automotive, so I'm not sure that anyone would agree with your self-righteous stand about why you didn't/won't contribute. The only good etiquette you've displayed is the signature tip. Thanks! Alwayslearnedstuff (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi if you feel that my actions breach Wikipedia's code of conduct you are welcome to report me at WP:ANI, just be careful not to hoist yourself with your own WP:PETARD.GDX420 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Setting aside the COI issue, I think the company is clearly notable. All six references currently provided in the article constitute third-party significant coverage in reliable sources and there's the Forbes piece on top of that. I think the tone of the article is reasonably neutral. I'd like to see a few references backing up the sentence: "Since its formation, REE has partnered with several automotive manufacturers including Tenneco, Musashi Seimitsu, NSK, American Axle, KYB, Mitsubishi Corporation" but besides that, I see no real problem with the article, regardless of who wrote it. Pichpich (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've included the Forbes piece and another source to back up that sentence so I don't see any statement that isn't properly sourced. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the company is notable and has third party coverage. The author of this submission has a track record of overzealous COI reports and I think I've only seen one or two where he has been supported by other editors. Otherwise he just engages in bad faith claims about others and, as above, goes around alleging off-wiki evidence linking editors to corporate paid edits. Hey GDX, did you ever post the off wiki evidence of me being "a paid editor for Starling Bank" like you asserted way back when? Llemiles (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note For users with OTRS permissions, the off-wiki evidence can be viewed on Ticket#2020060210002909. It seems to show that REE Automotive have been soliciting for Wikipedia writers to create this article, and may well have provided some or all of the content (which would make this article a copyright violation). Yunshui 雲 水 10:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Does the OTRS ticket support the accusation that the content attributed to Alwayslearnedstuff is in fact exactly what the company provided? That probably would not constitute a copyright violation since the company presumably understands that whatever they post on Wikkipedia, even through an intermediary, is in the public domain. It would, however, be a very serious lapse in judgment on the part of Alwayslearnedstuff (especially since he's been adamant that the content is his own work) and one that should probably have consequences. So what exactly is on that ticket? Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's... not correct. Wikipedia's content is emphatically not public domain, it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. In adding content to Wikipedia, the editor adding it claims that they release it under the terms of that licence, which requires that they own the copyright to it. That in turn requires that the content is either entirely original content created by that editor, or that they have had the copyright legally transferred to them by the original owner/creator. If an editor copies text into Wikipedia that they did not write themselves (or that they cannot prove copyright ownership of), and that text cannot be shown to either be freely available under a CC-BY-SA or less restrictive licence, then their addition is a copyright violation - in releasing it under Wikipedia's licence, they claim authorship and copyright ownership.
 * The OTRS ticket does not contain the text in the article; it consists of a set of screenshots of email exchanges purporting to be between a representative of REE Automotive and an editor who was previously hired to create the article. The exchanges include images of text documents from REE that are presumed to contain the proposed content. Yunshui 雲 水 07:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing is questionable and so is the content of the article. It had a week for the problems be addressed and they never were and nothing in the article seems to pass NCORP's trivial coverage bar whatever sources the content comes from. Plus, it's still written like an advert a week later with buzz words like "unicorn" and sentences like "The company's modular platform is flat[1] and designed to support a wide range of electric vehicle designs." There is no other reason to describe their product in that kind of detail except to advertise it. While I know AfDs aren't cleanup, after the stuff I mentioned is gone there essentially won't be an article. Except for a one line sentence containing basic, run of the mill information and Wikipedia isn't a directory. Ultimately, if the article could have been improved, it would have been already and it wasn't. That's my analysis of the situation at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete All of the references are based on PR and interviews with the CEO. Not one journalist has provided any independent analysis/opinion/etc which is required and is of one of the most important criteria of notability. WP:ORGIND says references must contain intellectually independent writing (Independent Content) - that is must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I am unable to locate any references which are not based on PR.
 * This Times of Israel reference is based on this company PR announcement, contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from AutoCar is based on information provided by the company and interview with the CEO, has no Independent Content and also fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from AVT is based on a "launch announcement" and information provided by the company and a question/answer format with the CEO, has no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Israel21c is copied from this PR announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This in Forbes is also based on an announcement from the company and a partner company, KYB. There is no Independent Content and extensive information is provided by the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from New Atlas is more of the same "launch" announcement churnalism based entirely information provided by the company and on a phone call with the CEO. Fails ORGIND.
 * This from haaretz.com contains a brief history of the company's funding and valuation, background information on the co-founders, the tie-up with Hino and list of investors. Nearly all the information appears in past company announcements and PR but is presented in a way that could be interpreted as the journalist's analysis. Therefore I wouldn't discount this reference entirely although it isn't enough on its own to push this topic into meeting notability requirements.
 * This from Fast Company is a short profile of innovative companies in the Middle East. The profile was provided by the company (as evidenced by the sales/marketing spiel which is the same spiel in all their profiles), fails WP:ORGIND
 * Not notable, WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps one day somebody might be interested enough to create significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content but none of these are it. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:12, 9 June 2020 (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.