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 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Envo Drive Systems[edit]

Envo Drive Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NCORP. Of the sources cited and other sources I could find through searches, none meet CORPDEPTH because they are routine news stories. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Citation from CanadianSME meets CORPDEPTH in my opinion. It is in depth detail of the company, not a sponsored post, and organization is an independent third party. In addition to that there are more than 100 mentions of "ENVO" on different news, industry magazines. Wikipedia readers in general would be helped with this page. Haseeblog (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That source is also an interview with the company founder. Having more than 100 mentions in news or industry magazines (which are looked upon with skepticism per WP:ORGIND) does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is another un-sponsored in-depth published content featuring ENVO. Fully charged is a popular UK based media company. https://fullycharged.show/episodes/envo-small-electric-traffic-beating-vehicles-for-every-occasion/ Haseeblog (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a combination of a product review and an interview with the company's founder. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From Notability page "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization."

  evaluation of product, hence, review is considered. Is the interview the only problem left?

  If so, here are review of the product produced by the company

  https://electrek.co/2023/07/25/envo-stax-almost-perfect-ebike-looks-like-regular-bike/

  https://electrek.co/2023/08/30/envo-electric-atv-towing-off-road/ Haseeblog (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're potentially conflating two separate things here. NCORP provides guidelines on organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services which is why that sentence mentions "evaluation of a product" which would apply if this topic was a product. But it isn't, it is a commercial company so therefore the review of the product won't assist in establishing notability for the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take a look at WP:PRODUCTREV. There's no indication that the reviews cited here are from reliable sources or that those sources are sufficiently independent (indeed, electrek.co uses sponsored links and invests in green energy companies per their about page) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The affiliate links are for other brands such as "ENVO". Infact you may notice even on the covering blog of ENVO Stax there was a affiliate link to RadPower, indicating all the views expressed for ENVO were unbiased (and for the sake of review).

  Here is another review from DesignBoom: https://www.designboom.com/design/envo-snowbike-electric-12-01-2020/ Haseeblog (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The DesignBoom review does not meet #1 of PRODUCTREV. There is no indication that the reviewer "has personally experienced or tested the product" nor does the review "describe[] their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products". voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only in-depth source is an interview with the founder. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the CORPDEPTH check does this article fail? Haseeblog (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Try looking at the "Independent Content" part of WP:ORGIND first. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from CanadianSME meets CORPDEPTH in my opinion. It is in depth detail of the company, not a sponsored post, and organization is an independent third party. In addition to that there are more than 100 mentions of "ENVO" on different news, industry magazines. Wikipedia readers in general would be helped with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseeblog (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Canadian SME says about itself:

• "With an aim to contribute to the development of Canada’s Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s), Cmarketing Inc is a potential marketing agency and a boutique business management company progressing rapidly in its scope. By acknowledging a firm reliance of the Canadian economy over its SMEs, the agency has resolved to launch a magazine, the pure focus of which will be the furtherance of Canadian SMEs, and to assist their progress with the scheduled token of enlightenment via the magazine’s pertinent content."

Here's what our notability guideline for companies says about interviews:

• "A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:
  • "memoirs or interviews by executives"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable spam article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing useful in EBSCO, ProQuest or Gale either. Best we can do is a redirect to the company Velometro Mobility (§ History). I don't think a "delete and redirect" is necessary, but it's not like there's much in the article currently. The article isn't spammy IMO, it's just that there's nothing to write here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Candian SME article does NOT meet CORPDEPTH. It is an interview and the intro is so promotional in tone I would believe that the subject of the article supplied that information to include with it. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is a article from CleanTechnica that may be of interest. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/17/eco-innovation-on-wheels-meet-the-micromobility-design-contest-visionaries/ Haseeblog (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it would be considered reliable based on this discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The competition was sponsored and organized by Envo Drive Systems is right there - fails ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability (ORGIND/CORPDEPTH). HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of notability BoraVoro (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources not up to WP:ORGDEPTH standard/not independent. Rupples (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2023 (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.