Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Assistant (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Per nominator's suggestion, the editors who voted to keep the article should improve it by removing anything promotional and adding most (if not all) of the sources in this discussion to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home Assistant

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Home Assistant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is very promotional in tone, but that wouldn't necessarily be a problem if I was able to find any reliable sources that would allow it to be pruned and made respectable. My problem is that, while there are 65 references in the article, they are almost all either download sites, affiliated sites, or WP:UGC websites for enthusiasts to share experiences. There are a couple of potentially RS refs that I can read, to TechHive and Gizmodo, but they only mention the subject in passing and offer no substantive content. There's also a Wired article which seems either to be paywalled so I haven't been able to review that. Based on what I see however, I'm not convinced that WP:GNG is satisfied. I have looked for better sourcing, and drawn a blank, but I confess that software is not my forte so would be willing to withdraw if someone with more familiarity with the subject is able to improve the sourcing. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a lot of the references are not evidence of notability (they are serving a different purpose in the article), but buried among them is some clear evidence of significant and direct coverage, in my opinion. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 15:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll admit right upfront that whataboutism is a poor defense, but it takes only a few random clicks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_and_open-source_software to see this article has more and better sourcing with regard to Notability than many other open source projects with articles here. I'd submit that many open source projects that may otherwise be notable when compared to their commercial competitors in terms of user population/uptake do not have the equivalent media coverage for sourcing simply because they do not have marketing and public relations staffs that generate press coverage for commercial software companies/products. If the article survives AfD, I'll pitch in to help address the tone issues. AUTiger » talk 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my nomination, I noted that sources for software packages were not really my area of expertise; if editors experienced in this type of article are telling me that they feel that some of the sources are reliable, I have to give heed to that. I'm not convinced about some of these, but perhaps the article is salvageable after all. To be clear, I still think it needs a pruning saw taking to it, to remove all the unreliable sources and puffery, and I'm grateful to Aytiger for offering to help with that. 0x0077BE, Mrand would you also be willing to weigh in? I'm not in a position to withdraw the nomination, since a couple of people have already !voted delete, but I would be content with the article being kept if I knew that some experienced eyes were going to take a proper look at it. GirthSummit (blether) 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Oops, reping Autiger GirthSummit (blether) 09:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
I am a very infrequent editor these days and I'm very overburdened with various other responsibilities so I can't really promise to make any major overhauls to the article, but I will set a reminder to check back in a few weeks, and if someone wants to ping me on my talk page when a revamp has been done I'd be happy to give it a copy-edit / review pass. Sorry I can't promise any more than that. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my protestations that I do not have time to help clean things up too much, I stole time from my other obligations to write up my prescription for how to improve the article on the talk page. I've also added this to the WP:WikiProject Software list of articles needing improvement. If anyone feels that my diagnosis of the problems is off, please feel free to add to that "To Do" list. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existing references to coverage on Stacey on IoT website should be suitable as reliable sources. Stacey Higginbotham is a prominent tech journalist that has been working in the industry for 18+ years (writing for professional publications like Fortune and PCMag among others), has a verified Twitter account, appears in Google News, etc. A quick search also turned up an ArsTechnica article about how artist Lauren McCarthy used Home Assistant to study behavioral changes of the participants in her performance piece. And just today, Ars published another in-depth article. So I don’t think sourcing is an issue here, but agree the tone could use some adjustments. SeanMooney (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC) — SeanMooney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The article needs cleanup, but it is a notable project that meets GNG with several non-UGC references that are reputable in the tech-media landscape. Sirthorn (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Sirthorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • A note about off-wiki canvassing Can I just draw everyone's attention to WP:CANVAS? I'm not accusing any particular individuals here, but the pageview statistics for this page show a very sudden increase in readership when this discussion was added, and I note that amongst the people !voting keep there are brand new accounts, accounts that have not edited for over a decade, and an account who refers to the subject in the first person - something fishy seems to be going on. I no longer believe the subject to be non-notable, and I think there's only one way that this discussion can be closed; there is however a body of work to do to get rid of all the unreliable sourcing, much of which amounts to blogspam, and to trim any any cruft that can't be reliable sourced: I hope that some of the editors !voting keep will be willing to help with this task. GirthSummit (blether) 09:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I came here as a result of off-wiki canvassing and I am a casual acquaintance of one of the core contributors (though I don't use the software in question myself). I probably should have mentioned that at the start, but to the extent that I saw canvassing, it was of the form, "Are there any experienced WP editors who can help with this?" and not "Please vote to keep the HA page up!" and I stopped in fully intending to take and unbiased look at the case for notability and explain notability criteria to the team if need be (as is my SOP when someone off-wiki runs afoul of WP policies, conventions or drama).
I think Robbie (who is using first person pronouns to refer to the project), did give adequate notice that he is a core contributor to the project, and I think what canvassing occurred was a result of not knowing WP policies more than anything else (and they basically were just asking for help from people who *do* understand WP policies, so it's a bit of a Catch-22 after all...). I think at the end of the day this will be a net benefit for the project, since it got some hopefully motivated eyes on the article and was an opportunity for Home Assistant contributors to understand the contribution policies and workflows involved in wikipedia — they are open source contributors, after all, and I think generally motivated to contribute to free culture. Thanks for working on this Girth Summit, sorry for not being immediately forthright about my (albeit weak) connection to the subject. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
0x007BE said it better but I just wanted to clarify that the only canvassing done was this tweet from our official account (by me). As 0x007BE said, it only asked for help cleaning up the article, not coming in to change the vote here or anything close to it. That tweet is almost certainly why there is a bump in the stats. I don’t think I’m in conflict with WP:CANVAS as I didn’t directly ask for people to weigh in on this discussion (and never would even without knowing that rule) but will keep those rules in mind for the future. Robbiet480 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on a tweet from the official Home Assistant Twitter account, it is clear that the company (and their employees) have encouraged and likely participated in a coordinated canvassing campaign. Thread here. KidAd • SPEAK 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • KidAd, FWIW, I don't think it's a company as such, it's an open-source volunteer project, a bit like this one. Not that it makes canvassing OK and I do think this was clearly improper canvassing, but it might affect the way you feel about it. GirthSummit (blether) 20:42, 2 April 2021 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Home_Assistant_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137914372"