Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohem

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 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hohem

[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)

Solid NCORP fail. Every single hit one can find on Googe is a PR piece obviously written or paid for by the company, as are all the references. Page author claims to be from NZ, but has this inexplicable interest in Chinese tech companies. No response to previous COI query on talk. Fermiboson (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. Fermiboson (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

*I propose keeping the article on Hohem. This company has received notable third-party recognition, including the Red Dot and IF Design Awards, which are significant in establishing its notability. These awards are independent of the company's self-published materials, adding to the article's credibility.

~~To enhance the article, I suggest:~~

Adding more independent, reliable sources: This will strengthen the article's verifiability as per Wikipedia's guidelines.
Removing or revising promotional content: Ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

~~Loving This Mayweather (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE per This[reply]

Yes, those would help; do you have any you can add, rather than simply restating policy to us (we're intimately familiar with AfD policy), thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, or are you not, the same person or affiliated in any manner with any of the following:

User:Voxl
The corporation that is the subject of this article
Kevin Xu

Moreover, have you used large language models such as ChatGPT in the process of drafting up your above comment? Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deny the association you mentioned; my stance is solely based on Wikipedia's preference for improving articles over deletion when objective facts are presented. I am merely stating facts without any bias. I adhere to all Wikipedia rules, and if any evidence suggests that I have violated any regulations, please feel free to block my account. Loving This Mayweather (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fermiboson (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant third-party coverage. I'll chance my vote if coverage can be demonstrated.Cortador (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This product review has a by-line in a site that seems RS, [1]. Not sure how much notability that adds, but it's one source... Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reference to pass Notablity. Bimanmandal (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTo argue for retaining the Hohem article on Wikipedia based on significant coverage in third-party sources:

1.Award Recognition: Hohem's receipt of prestigious awards like the Red Dot Design Award and iF Design Award provides significant, independent third-party recognition, meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria.

2.Independent Coverage: Information about these awards on the official Red Dot and iF Design websites serves as reliable, independent sources, essential for Wikipedia's standards.

3.Public Interest: The awards indicate Hohem's relevance and contribution to technology, aligning with Wikipedia's goal of providing publicly interesting information.

1.Red Dot Design Award: iSteady V22.Red Dot Design Award: Hohem iSteady3.Hohem iSteady M6 phone gimbal - IfdesignPulebbbhngg (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Pulebbbhngg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how, as an account with only one edit, you have managed to find this AfD. Fermiboson (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are just a university student in China, and you are still young. Please don't use your worldview to interpret this world, for it is vast. Just because you haven't seen a B2 bomber in China, does that mean you don't know of its existence? Thank you! Pulebbbhngg (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a university student in China. Fermiboson (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that these rewards are relevant, you need to demonstrate that they have received independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors who are not socks or one edit accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ordinarily I'd want to say the existence of lots of product users (and they seem to have a lot of users, even in google scholar results) would generate interest among encyclopedia users, and would want to see the article retained. The nominator's conclusion coverage is all bought-and-paid-for seems unsupportable.

But there's so little on this company as a company rather than their products, that it doesn't seem that anyone cares about them as a company. I did a search for Chinese sources and only found one (aside from product reviews) that seems even close to significant coverage:

A lengthy article in an independent source, more along the lines of earned media than a company-produced piece but still very reliant on the company [2]

If someone can come up with additional reliable sources I'll reconsider my vote. But I don't see the value in an article that's basically a list of product releases and some uncited/primary-sourced text. Oblivy (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete due to lack of independent third-party coverage. Cortador (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) (duplicate !vote struck) Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2023 (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. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:15, 1 December 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.