Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tushy (company) - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. The deciding issue here is the lack of in-depth and independent sourcing. For commercial companies, the standards here are quite stringent. If press releases and the like are accepted as sufficient sourcing, ut is hard to avoid Wikipedia becoming an indirect marketing tool. The article contains several sources, not all of them about the company. Hkkingg listed a number of sources that cover the company in some depth, but the analysis by HighKing on the source's independence and reliability is convincing here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

So as I mentioned on my AfD for their CEO, here I am. There were... quite the volume of WP:PRODUCTREV to get through, but nothing with significant coverage of the company, and barely anything on any specific product. Though this was not the primary focus, I do not believe any individual product of theirs is notable either, even ignoring questions of ORGIND or RS. The coverage of their events would seem to be excluded on WP:SPIP. I don't see any plausible way to meet WP:NCORP here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sources 1 and 34 in the article are RS per Cite Highlighter and provide some coverage about the company. The rest help at least meet BASIC, some more extensive than others, but we should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC does not apply to companies, only people. But still they may qualify. I am gonna have a deeper look. Hkkingg (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets GNG then, we have enough to establish basic notability about this company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on present citations including dfdnews, People, Self.com, Digital Trends, Bidet Genius, and tech Crunch.Hkkingg (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was talking to a sock
Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [1] [2] [3] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was talking to a sock

Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [1] [2] [3] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. This is written by a bot that scrapes "billions of anonymised purchased to answer real-time questions on consumer behaviour", no deffo not a reliable source/article. It also only mentions the company once, in-passing, and has zero in-depth information about the company - fails WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. This in People is based entirely on a company announcement and their own published words, this is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This is a review of a bidet, zero "Independent Content" about the *company*, fails CORPDEPTH. This in Digital Trends is based entirely on an announcement - it is a regurgitated ad - and has no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This from Bidet Genius is first of all written by a company that sells Bidets, so not exactly a reliable source and also fails ORGIND as they're not independent. Happens to also not include in-depth information about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH. Finally this from TechCrunch continues the long tradition of this publication acting as an out-sourced marketing department for companies, article fails ORGIND because it is simply a puff profile regurgitating company messaging. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the available sources really meet NCORP criteria, as we cannot find independent, in-depth, non-trivial coverage. --176.210.111.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — 176.210.111.198 (talk) has only contributed to this XFD page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) not sure if you're someone who forgot to sign in or...[reply]
Comment they also want to purchase naming rights to a sports stadium in Buffalo [4] and [5]. These are sources that are about the company, not strictly about routine business funding and other normal company goings-on. Oaktree b (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not routine coverage, and WP:SPIP besides? What "critical analysis of the event" is there? A few puns? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in addition, there are a ton of "profiles". see the nytimes Freedun (yippity yap) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there is enough for an article about the founder. i think I'm going to start that some time but business people are kinda boring Freedun (yippity yap) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Now blocked as a UPE sock by Ponyo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to an article on Miki Agrawal, a quick glance indicates BASIC seems plausible, but for a company article the sources we need to write an article about a company need to be about the company. That means there needs to be independent content, published in independent RS, that is detailed and secondary enough to actually write an article from those sources. A profile on the founder doesn't cut it, even if the company is mentioned. (No matter how many times those mentions happen. Quantity is not a substitute.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the sources in the article provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, mainly regurgitated company announcements and other PR-related content. If anyone thinks there are references that meet NCORP, post a link and indicate which paragraph/page/whatever contains the Independent in-depth Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cite Highlighter is not enough for corporations and organizations; we have to look at the articles and examine whether there is significant coverage from independent. I've read through sources 1 and 34, which Oaktree b mentioned above, and it's a bit of a stretch. The first one principally seems about the CEO's marketing stunt, but that isn't really coverage of the company. And the second is a report that a bidet company has made a bid for the Bills stadium, which is a form of a routine business announcement. I've also read the other sources mentioned by Hkkingg, and I find the analysis by HighKing to be convincing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.