Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigfox

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. Opinions are divided, but a renomination now that the article is less overtly promotional is conceivable. Sandstein 09:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigfox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of a promotional campaign for the company and its executives. If the article is read careful, the figures it gives suggesting importance are actually projections to 2020, The extent of the article is mainly obtained by saying things several times over, e.g. "arrival in Denmark. ...thus joins the list of countries including ..... " Almost everything given is planning or preliminary stages. I'm reluctant to support deletion of an article with extensive references,but the references as would be expected are mostly PR or notices or speculation about plans. It has announced a great many partnerships, and there are at least 2 press releases cited for each of them. Several companies have purchased the product. It lists them all, with 2 or 3 or 4 press releases for each of them. Any number of such references does not add up to notability -- it just documents an extensive PR campaign. The article was written by one of our more extensive undeclared paid editors, before they got blocked. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree with above reasoning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this advertorially toned content belongs on the company web cite, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes notability as far as I can tell, and with all the promotional noise pruned from it, it can still certainly make for an informative article yet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with AdventurousSquirrel. There is some inappropriate advertising blurb, but the core content is useful and appropriate. Brightondub (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer the account Brightondub above has recorded 3 edits, the last ones prior to the !vote above occurred in 2009. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin that this account has no other recent edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unquestionably advertised and, including recent improvements, there's been no guaranteed signs of actual convincing, thus delete by that alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of WP:RS on the subject, such as [1]. Agree with AdventurousSquirrel. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inclusion of the book reference above swings it for me but the article needs a lot of pruning. I'll give it a first pass to remove the obvious forward-looking statements and puffery. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed significant portions of the article including all of the PR references and forward-looking statements and PR-announced business deals and I've added 3 references (including the one mentioned above) that all pass WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Kudos to User:HighKing for the large cleanup of the promotional content in the article. My concern is the remaining references seem to rely too much on trade publications and press releases to qualify for WP:CORP. The above referenced book source, although a little more comprehensive than some of the other sources, is none the less a trade publication from the proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information and Software Technologies. After reviewing the sources both in en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia (nothing helpful, all press releases) and eliminating the press releases the remainder of the sources don't appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I was unable to find more significant coverage in G-Searches, HighBeam or NYTimes mostly PR or trade publications. CBS527^Talk 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbs527: Not sure if you saw I also added two other book references. Links in my comment below. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note, that I also added two more book references. https://books.google.com/books?id=_BzfDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA241 and https://books.google.com/books?id=cLI0DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA56 and I believe these have not been considered by the Delete !votes above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.