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]
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]
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]
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.
More