Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeWi


 * 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   Move to Sol (laptop) and make a redirect  . Move to Sol (laptop) as suggested and make a redirect from the company name; this is where the notability lies. It's what I think we normally do in cases like this.  DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

WeWi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 21:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello The Banner - This company has been doing a lot of work overseas with governments, NGO's and institutions, it has been covered over the news (resources which I have included) - I don't understand why this would be deleted. There are no reference to any company Press release, or any news which have come from within the company itself - National papers reviewed the company's products, government releases etc. Please explain what's wrong with this article and I will try to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There may be concerns with regards to WP:COATRACK, and the article may need to be renamed to be about the laptop; however, the article is solidly sourced. Due to the short name and my unfamiliarity with them, I had difficulty finding resources on the company itself.  At the very least, the laptop has surely established notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2013


 * Thank you kindly NinjaRobotPirate. I completely agree, the company's public product is very well covered, I imagine their other work isn't as much (as stated in one of the articles most of their work isn't in the public's eye.) It seems it would be reasonable to keep the information about company which made the product available - When more 3rd party information comes out about the company I'll be sure to keep building on this page. I've edited parts that seem less objective, I'm still learning and have no self-advertising intentions. I'm just passionate about what they do. DSNR (talk

(UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep although a consensus to userify due to Too soon would also make sense. One passionate editor might indicate taking it into their user space until it becomes more clearly notable from more in-depth sources. If it stays, of course it needs much rework. Like most company articles when they are first created, uses the common promotional language made to make the company look much larger than it is. Saying it is "multinational" with subsidiaries and divisions for example, does not really mean anything. Any student can get a web site and claim to serve customers "Worldwide". Once the promotion goes down, the "Coat rack" argument should be less applicable. In fact, I think it should be fine for articles about small companies and their first product to start out under the name of the company, and then spin off the product to an article only when the company has enough other products to make the unified article too unwieldy. Normally we should have a high bar for private companies, since most sources tend to be either primary or just re-posts on web sites of primary sources. In this case the laptop did get some press it appears, but not clear how much is just re-posting the press release. I can take a quick look to see if this can be rescued. W Nowicki (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the further edits Nowicki. Some of the changes you've made certainly makes the article a lot better. Resources: I didn't see any of the articles re-post or refer to a a company press release - I've actually avoided including all articles that referred to a press release or other news source. The one from London Press, or National Post (It's the largest national newspaper in Canada) met with them and saw the product. The government release mentioned WeWi Ghana (as does the company and some articles) I would have imagined this is enough to establish the company doesn't operate just in Canada. I'm sure a lot more news will come out from them closer to the worldwide release date of Sol (I've been told Mid-November.) It is a bit funny about S.O.L's military use, but from my understanding it means sun in Latin and Spanish, also some ancient sun deity of sorts and apparently, scifi fiction often refers to Earth's star as Sol. DSNR (talk (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)
 * Delete Fails notability MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep @MatsTheGreat, You fail to provide explanation as to why this fails notability - Something that's covered by world-wide printed news (you know, those printed papers), has actual releases by a government body and is a company that has done something pretty notable is an article that does not fail notably. If you're going to give an opinion, it has to be solidified through the guidelines, not your own unsubstantiated opinion. That's something I've learned though wikipedia's own guidelines. DSNR (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)


 * Keep Also, who is this new MatsTheGreat user? The first 'contribution' this user does is to post a delete note on this article?!? Looks like a troll to me... Competition perhaps. DSNR (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)
 * When when you don't know somebody, there is no need to start vandalising his or her page, as you did. And you can only vote once. The Banner talk 11:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Although a lot of work is done, I still see the article as an advertisement about their laptop, not a neutral page with information about a company. So I have removed a lot of spam to make the article more neutral. The Banner talk 11:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Banner, it's great to see the person wanting this article deleted replying to the thread. Although I don't agree that you have removed a reference to a government issue. That's a huge milestone in that company. Also you have removed references to the National Post, Canada's leading national paper. In the effort of making this article more neutral, you removed some of the interesting bits about the development of that company and product. Also, when a user (such as this MatsTheGreat character simply creates a new account just to negate the work of others, he's not making Wikipedia better. He's making it worse. I simply modified his banner to more accurately represent his work. DSNR (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)
 * Yes, my friend. I admire your continued efforts to promote the laptop by adding features and linking it from other pages. It only gives more evidence that this article is spam and product promotion. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not for advertising. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It a product and an evolution to mobile computing and the availability of Linux systems, why is that spam. To date, you have systematically used that word without providing a logical structure as to why you think it's spam (mind you, you are the only one here saying it's a spam). You must have skipped a class or two on how to conduct a debate in an adult manner - explain why this is spam and not information about a technology/system/gadget. Also, do spare me the niceties, you're not my friend. Friends are constructive to one another instead of constantly torpedoing others. DSNR (talk (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 15:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Move to Sol (laptop) (possibly with WeWi as redirect there) or weak keep under this name. Took a look through the pages history and it looks to me like most of the promotional language is gone, though I agree it could still use some rewriting. The laptop itself certainly seems notable enough, but the company less so; while there are some reliable sources that mention the company, the real subject written about seems to be the laptop in most if not all cases. I do not see any proof the company is notable for anything else than the laptop at this moment and I believe that readers will be more likely to search for the laptop than the company. If kept at current location, I believe a mention at the Sol dab-page would be useful. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the 'promotional' language was indeed removed. The laptop is indeed notable. However are we saying that the company which have created it isn't? Can you imagine an article about, say, a notable musical piece, but its composer not notable? There were other articles and references added about the company. The Globe and mail Article talks about the company as well. Can we come up to a decision on this? There are other companies on Wikipedia which have done less, were mentioned in less newspapers or online that are not plagued by the same level of ambush against this article DSNR (talk (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. The subject of an article does not get notability because of its relation with an already notable subject. See INHERITED for an explanation. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article you've linked to mentions that there could be both cases ("does not always imply the notability...") meaning it can. It's your opinion to chose one side over the other. The company is not only mentioned in these articles and the government release (Globe and Mail, Metro News, London Free Press, etc etc) but the company is discussed about in these articles henceforth the company is notable under the regulations of wikipedia. It seems as if you are acting here on a personal vendetta to discredit the achievement of the company. I've seen companies here with minimal resources and mostly links to press releases. Go chase after them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can indeed imagine situations in which an object or piece of art or similar is notable, without the creator or creating company being notable. The only reliable, independent coverage I have been able to discover for this company are short mentions along the lines of "WeWi's $300-ish SOL Laptop [...]" or "WeWi says [such-and-such about the laptop]" or "According to WeWi the SOL Laptop will [...]". I have seen no independent, reliable source write anything about WeWi outside the context of the SOL Laptop; and even within the context of the SOL Laptop, essentially the only information given come in the form of short mentions of non-notable information--with exception of them having developed the SOL Laptop. The references used in the current WeWi article are all predominantly about the laptop, the only exception being WeWi's own site.
 * You say WeWi is being discussed in these sources. Let's take a look at that.
 * Source 1 (ZDNet): Has all of a single sentence that is not specifically related to the SOL. The other mentions are cases of "The founder of WeWi says this-and-this about the laptop" and similar.
 * Source 2 (WeWi): Not independent: WeWi's own site.
 * Source 3 (PCPro): Not even a single full sentence that is about WeWi in any other context than the laptop, unless you want to count "We spoke to WeWi's founder David Snir to find out more," and that hardly counts as the 'find out more' is really 'find out more about SOL'.
 * Source 4 (London Free Press): One sentence about WeWi only half-related to the SOL. No other mentions not related.
 * Source 5 (The Daily Mail): Not even a single sentence mentioning WeWi in any other context than having created the SOL.
 * Source 6 (The Globe and Mail): A few mentions that are only half-related (mentions of future, SOL-related/based project), nothing much though. All other mentions of WeWi are specifically connected to the SOL.
 * Source 7 (Computer World): Not a single mention of WeWi in any other context than the SOL.
 * I'd hardly consider that discussing the company. That's discussing the laptop and mentioning the company as an aside. As to the point of other companies being here with minimal resources, whether that is valid or not does not have a bearing on this AfD, which is about this specific company. Regarding the point of vendetta, which I'm not sure was directed at The Banner or everyone here 'voting' something else than keep, please note that I have no edits to the article of either this company or rivaling companies, and that I have no specific interest in this article one way or the other, except for my wish to help Wikipedia become the best it can be. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to take personal attacks like "vendetta" only as a confirmation of a marketeer running out of reasonable arguments. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are more than "one sentence" in the resources. Paragraphs here and there. A marketeer... Sure, think what you'd like, that's your own opinion. I'm not being paid by the company. I'm merely a Londoner, an avid Linux and Ubuntu enthusiast and proud of their project. You on the other end, act as if you know it all (about me, or that company), you systematically remove important things from the article and are generally not giving any logical explanation to your edits - something for which other editors have also noted. DSNR (talk 17:55, 10 November 2013(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)

The important part of my message was "one sentence here and there not directly related to the SOL itself", a message I repeat with practically every source I checked.

To me, it seems that the only notable thing about WeWi is the SOL, as being a Canadian company, starting out as ISP or offering ad hoc disaster recovery, to pick out a few, are not notable on their own (and likely would not have been mentioned in one or more independent sources if not for the SOL) under usual circumstances, as seems to be the case with WeWi. (Which is not a bad thing. Unusual circumstances making something normally not notable notable usually are along the lines of huge court cases and scandals, to mention some.)

The fact that out of seven sources, six are predominantly about the SOL and the remaining source is the company's website, does nothing to disprove that either. Should someone find a few reliable and independent sources that give more in-depth information about WeWi, or at least more-than-just-mention them, in a different context than the SOL, I'd agree that it's fine at its current location.

As it stands right now, the company is not what is notable, the laptop is, and the company gets mentioned here and there because of the laptop.

(Also, if you reply to both me and The Banner at the same time, which you seemed to do with last reply, could you please be a bit more clear who you're addressing with which points next time? I got a bit confused at first, thinking "but I never said that" before I realized you likely had switched from addressing me to addressing The Banner, and I assume we'd both rather not end up in a discussion about who-said-what based on such confusion. I know I would rather not.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2013 (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.