Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedego Electric Bikes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There doesn't seem to be any clear agreement whether the sources presented here, and those used to improve the article during the debate, can clearly show notability. The discussion has got quite heated, so I think it's best to close it now than prolong the argument for another week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedego Electric Bikes

[edit]
Pedego Electric Bikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Our policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Promotion are explicitly clear what can and cannot be accepted, and business webhosting is one of them, take for example: 1 is an indiscriminate news "guide-like article, 2 is an self-service business profile, 3 is company website, 4 is a similarly worded indiscriminate guide, 5 is from an indiscriminate trade publisher as is 6 and 7; with 8 being about store locations, which the first policy explicitly says: "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions ". Acceptiny shape or form of advertising makes us a search engine or advertiser, and that's explicitly what our fundamental pillars fight against, this is no differently. If we then consider what else exists about this company, see this and this, with the latter offering: 1-9, 11-13, are store locations and 10, 15-20, 21 is a self-service company profile, 22-23 are business listings so are once again guides before repeating back and forth on the next page. WP:Notability makes clear: A topic is presumed to be notable if it is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia not policy. The WMF has also made clear that we are not to accept any advertising including covert ones, so the 2 accounts here and here aren't any different. Also, as WP:Notability says, articles must be in notability-condition to be accepted otherwise, or else it's simply a misuse of Wikipedia mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment - These are the same exact sources posted here and the Huntington Beach Independent is in my analysis above, source of which in itself is unacceptable for WP:CORP as it's an announcement, see policy statement above. WP:AUD actually says nothing about instant guarantees and, like with WP:Notability, emphasizes WP:What Wikipedia is not, is priority, not contrary. WP:GNG actually says: Sources except routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention". If we somehow start considering republished press releases as these are, independent, then we are not longer WP:NPOV (policy). Current article as currently existing has not significantly changed or shown this is not simply a hosted business profile. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The sources provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers, and are reliable sources. Additional sources are available beyond the examples provided above. The article would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion, because it is a notable company. Is it really necessary for large swaths of text to be in bold here?
Did you actually read the sources above? Sorry, no offense, and I try to assume good faith, but it seems unlikely, per the timespan of this discussion thus far. Furthermore, regarding "These are the same exact sources posted here", the CNET article I posted above is not the same CNET source that is in the article, it's an entirely different article, and the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Weekly and Huntington Beach Independent articles I posted above are not in the article at all. As such, it comes across that you have not actually read the sources I posted above at all, which is disappointing, because these discussion are supposed to be objective and fact-based. Lastly, after some simple copy editing, this is the current state of the article. North America1000 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep SK#1 or Keep  After skimming it three times, I still don't see an argument for deletion in the nomination.  Nor do I see the evidence of using WP:BEFORE to confirm that there is a value to an AfD.  I also made a casual review of the article and the names of the publishers of the sources and the titles of the sources and the date of founding of the company, and the only WP:NOT problems I see here are that Wikipedia is not censored and that Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Here is the first sentence from the 11 April 2015 Newsweek article, "Since its humble beginnings in 2009, Pedego has been....No. 2 in the U.S. and making a considerable footprint overseas as well."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep is inapplicable given there are 3 policies in the nomination and the fact COI accounts is a factor, and I even linked news searches. As for Keep, what's the policy basis for contesting the said policies? There's no weight on how this nomination is violating policy or is malformed at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you will read what I said, it says, "I...don't see an argument for deletion in the nomination".  Your reply here is that policies are mentioned in the nomination.  There are even more policies mentioned at WP:Policies and guidelines, but that doesn't make WP:Policies and guidelines an argument for deletion for Pedego Electric Bikes.  I can't refute an argument that doesn't exist.  However, given the extensive work your nomination has caused other editors to do, it is also not right that this AfD should be closed WP:NPASR when the worldwide scope of this topic is clear from the sources.  Yes, you've linked news searches, but there is no context for why you've done this.
COI accounts is not mentioned in the nomination and has nothing to do with this AfD, because even if they exist, which is hard to prove, the article has been edited recently. 
I also stated, "Nor do I see the evidence of using WP:BEFORE to confirm that there is a value to an AfD."  I don't understand why you'd put effort into that nomination and then skip the essential elements of preparing the community for a discussion.  It makes no sense to me.  Please withdraw this nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For analysis purposes, I will pin everything these sources say and, regardless of whether there's this or that, they are still promotional because:
  • manufactured the Pedego Electric Bike, a colorful, sleek-looking beach cruiser with a battery pack that allows...exercise, and....the throttle and glide with nary a foot-pound or coulomb expended,
  • manufactured the Pedego Electric Bike, a colorful, sleek-looking beach cruiser with a battery pack that allows one to decide when and how much one should exercise....twist the throttle and glide....,
  • has dedicated Pedego store nearby....opened new stores in....making for a grand total of 65 brick-and-mortar shops from New Orleans to Dubai. Prices....$2,295 and go....depending on options,
  • glide down the boulevard at 20 mph with your glutes as free from stress.... Thank Pedego’s pedal assist mode, accomplished with a wee twist of the wrist,....delivers a jolt of juice to....rear-wheel hub motor when your own energy reserves....ot....hit an uphill grade, whichever comes first.,
  • shifting, seven-speed Shimano gear hub, grabby-good Avid BB7 brakes and a responsive twist-grip throttle, Do buy an industrial-strength lock for this....the battery locks up nicely,
  • Stretch Cargo design, capable of holding up to 400 pounds, meaning another human being or two or a backpack full of gold bullion ---- Pedego $2895.00,
  • Ford-branded beach cruiser powered by an electric battery that buys the rider up to 20 miles of pedal-free operation -- or longer, if the rider pedals part of the time., He formed the company,
  • The plug-in electric bikes, which retail for about $2,000 to $3,000 (the Ford Super Cruiser is $3695), are designed in Irvine, pre-assembled in China from parts built there and elsewhere in Asia, then finished in California, said the company's seller,
  • Electric bike brand Pedego has opened a store in Belmont . The bicycles are designed to provide an environmentally friendly alternative means of transportation. The shop is open for sales, tours, and rentals. The company is based in Orange County, Calif., and has more than 800 stores around the world. The Belmont shop is at -- Electric bike brand Pedego has opened a store in Belmont . The bicycles are designed to provide an environmentally friendly alternative means of transportation. The shop is open for sales, tours, and rentals. The company is based in Orange County, Calif., and has more than 800 stores around the world (this one is a clearly labeled "area business" therefore not significant), The Indepdent is also clearly labeled as "community news" therefore not significant, see:
  • new 39,000-square-foot building will have a showroom where people can view and test out the products, though they are not sold on site. The bikes are sold at more than 80 Pedego stores nationwide, including one in Huntington Beach at 301 Fifth Street, and other bicycle shops. The bikes, said CEO. [The CEO] said the bicycles -- he said, "That's what our bikes are". and all of these are in serious violation of WP:Not how-to since it not only says how you use the bicycle, but what its components are, what it costs, what the background is, etc. Not once was there a single paragraph without the company or employee's involvement, therefore that would not satisfy WP:NPOV. Accepting any promotionalism in exchange for eliminating NPOV altogether, is a serious concern for an encyclopedia. As the company well knows, there are numerous PR agencies or hosts it can use, but it should be clear Wikipedia is not one of them. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with material including LA Times and Newsweek, as well as other slightly less historic publications like Maxim. Article could be expanded with details such as product reviews in the various publications already cited. The AfD debate above seems to be drifting far from the topic and irrelevancies should be taken elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the purported references are essentially PR. It doesn't matter where they are published, the criteria for substantial discussion excludes this sort of dvertising. This article started as a blatant advertising draft by an obviously coi editor. Two experienced editors refused to move it into mainspace. The ed.primarily defending his own work above wrote the rest and moved it himself. What I do not understand is why that editor thinks other people's advertisements to be worth the effort, either writing them or defending them. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DGG: I don't know. You seem immediately dismissive of significant coverage in major national news media sources about the topic, as has appeared in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. Could you provide any evidence that the news articles are derived from PR, such as links to press releases from which the articles are supposedly based upon? Press releases are often easily found in Internet searches. One can type in the titles of the articles I listed above in Google searches to find potential duplicate content in PR sources. My searches have not yielded any proof that the sources are PR-derived. Without any proof, your assessment comes across as speculation, rather than as fact-based. North America1000 07:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's natural that any company will have public relations and that's what those jobs are for, to help and promote the company at their own gain and will, and it's been applied in nearly every other AfD, and this is no different. For example, I looked at the next sources posted in the nomination's News Search, and 24-34 are all the same announcements in the same manner so the clear logic is, not that all publishers copied each other, but that the company handed it to them, therefore it's primary enough to violate GNG. Take sources like this, this, this; they're all from different websites, supposed times, areas and people yet it's the same content, including content that mirrors their own press releases like this and this since they're equally posted at different websites, time and areas. See WP:NOT's quote: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors. That's actually also considering the same sources claimed to be acceptable by one of the Keeps, so the concern of such promotionalism still exists. That is exactly what's offered here, and that's an acceptable policy-based nomination. As mentioned, the article should actually be improved so there are clear chances of gauging whether the article can be accepted or not, and not simply the claims if it could. The concerns simply aren't in the article or sources alone, but in the history, see this one account which made a clear violation of WP:Not FAQ, so I agree that's a serious concern enough to warrant deletion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG and also WP:AUD, having received national-level news coverage in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. After some minor copy editing, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've thought about this for quite a while, and there sure are a lot of articles that appear to provide notability. However, none of them meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP standards:
    • Maxim - I don't believe this is an independent source. Maxim is by and large not a cycling publication, and while I don't know what the US standard is, over here such glowing gadget reviews in light reading such as fashion / GQ tend to be paid for. It doesn't help that Maxim's other bicycle reviews exhibit similar prose. And beside the point, this confers notability to the product, not to the company, which is mentioned once in the form of a bare URL.
    • Newsweek - The source does actually discuss the company. However, the author is David Weiss, who may well be the same David Weiss who authored the Maxim puff-piece, so it likely fails the independent critierion.
    • CNET - Finally a reasonable review that mentions the cons as well as the pros, but it's coverage of the product, and not the company. Per WP:PRODUCT: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right."
    • LA Times - May well have been based on an updated riff of [1]. Even if not, and if this is indeed an independent source, I'd argue that as WP:SIGCOV states that "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", and we're talking about a company with a PR department, and thus surely more influence over getting its name in major media publications than most other Wikipedia topics, WP:GNG is not being met here.
    • OC Weekly - A product review which does discuss the company, but doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH, since the company discussion part is sourced from quotes and reports by the company owner.
    • Huffington Post - This may well be significant coverage, but I'm not sure how independent it is, and certainly how reliable, considering it's chock full of company owner quotes.
    • Boston Globe - Routine coverage
    • Huntington Beach Independent - Local coverage of the opening of new company headquarters with a parade. This is not coverage of the parade, but merely an announcement relayed from the company in one way or another
    • Forbes - Another product review, company not discussed
On the whole, we've got a lot of dubious sources, some of which may be independent, some of which may meet WP:AUD, and some others that may constitute significant coverage, and together some might be construed to meet WP:GNG, but considering how shaky the foundations of building this article would be, and how easy it is for a company with a PR department to produce such sources, I'm inclined to vote delete. Daß Wölf 23:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No compliance with WP:Before.
Pointedly, it is the largest electric bike retailer in the country. Mark, Lois Alter (26 January 2015). "Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Creating Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Creating Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Says who, the company? That claim in Huffington Post (whose reliability has been questioned by me and others above) is hyperlinked to the LA Times source. As for that article, just look at its structure. We have Company #1 and Company #2 that have joined forces. The cooperation has produced a new product, which is described, touted, and priced. The lesser known company's history is told, with their other products also mentioned and priced in passing, and we also have quotations from owners/spokespeople describe their plans for the future. Over half the article's paragraphs are of the type "company/owner/spokesman said...". No commentary by the article author, no opinions or any statements by a third party whatsoever. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that's a press release to me, not a reliable secondary source which I'd like to have to cite such a bold assertion.
As for WP:BEFORE, I had found other sources on Google, but I don't see much of a point in dissecting every three-paragraph report on a store opening or closing. If you have any better sources, feel free to drop a link. Daß Wölf 01:10, 5 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pedego_Electric_Bikes&oldid=1089522934"