Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rondo Energy

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. ✗plicit 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Energy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:SERIESA. Notability is very far from established. Overall, this is either WP:GNG non-compliant, or WP:NOTYET. In either case, this right now is a vanity article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:GNG, I would consider notable coverage to include the Verge and TechCrunch sources, established publications that report on climate technologies and startup companies. There is additional notable coverage in other established publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, which can be used here as a source in addition, or instead, or existing sources. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for the opportunity to prepare an updated draft for you or another neutral editor, utilizing additional notable sources and ensuring the article is neutral, drawing only from notable public coverage and secondary sources. There is an emerging market for this new climate technology category -- of which Rondo is one of several notable companies. These new technologies (not uniquely Rondo's) are a matter of public interest and receiving notable coverage. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You appear to have an incomplete understanding of our guidelines and policies. The appropriate guideline for a company/organization is WP:NCORP which includes criteria such as those found in the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen: An article created by a connected contributor describing the background and proposition of a start-up company. Inclusion in lists of promising start-ups and funding announcements are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Justine Calma's article in The Verge and John Cox's article about prototype trials are probably the nearest to WP:RS coverage, but are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. here. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AllyD, I would also assert that Ed Ballard's coverage in the Wall Street Journal would be considered WP:RS coverage on Rondo's page or others, as well as the Fast Company World Changing Ideas award by the Fast Company editorial board. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The connected contributor has been forthcoming, and not tried to hide their connection. The question of notability is a matter of interpretation meaning that it is far from being an absolutely clear cut case of failed notability. The prudent thing to do is keep and improve as needed. Huggums537 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WSJ & Verge pieces are mostly based off company sources, with the independent text mostly talking about the industry in general or competitors, so they would fail WP:ORGIND. The TechCrunch article actually has a bit of independent doubts in the last paragraph, but WP:TECHCRUNCH is not a good source to establish notability. I don't think there is enough here to meet WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 08:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Far from it being a "matter of interpretation", WP:NCORP guidelines can be summarised as requiring multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage (in reliable sources) with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria (all rely entirely on info from the company and their execs with no "Independent Content") and I can't find any that does. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took a look at the WSJ coverage and it's just a founder interview, so fails the independence criterion. I disagree with User:Huggums537 - the criteria are a bright line, and this company doesn't meet it. The connected contributor is why this article on a non-notable company exists, and the direct editing is inappropriate per our COI guidelines, but we don't delete articles to punish people. This article should be deleted because the company (the company, not the industry) does not meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (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.