Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BetterSleep

BetterSleep

[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)

Non-notable app. No significant in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Polygnotus (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find the app mentioned in a list of others saying how they work, like source 5 is. [1], is about the same, I don't think that's enough coverage4 for an article here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every one of the six sources cited independently offer significant coverage of the subject, including two (CNN, les affaires) in which the app is the only subject of the article. Note that #2 is the only one made after the rename to "BetterSleep" in late 2021 (see press release); all other sources use the app's old name "Relax Melodies". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the press release as source #1 as the rename was uncited, so by "the six sources cited" I mean what's currently sources #2–7. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Note that CNN Underscored is completely separate from CNN and has complete editorial independence.[2] And of course they use affiliate marketing to make money, and when there is money to be made it is not an independent review. If one of their contributors says that a product sucks, they won't make money from affiliate links. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I still think they should be reliable, just like the NYT Wirecutter. They have "rigorous" editorial policies, a publicized listing of the members of the editorial board, provides independent analysis and criticism, and does not have a reputation for errors. It should be a reliable source in its own right.
I'm surprised there hasn't been an RSN discussion on affiliate marketing in general, but past discussions of sources did not consider affiliate marketing a conflict of interest. See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#The Bully Breeds. Adding affiliate links to every product is standard mainstream product-reviews practice. The Verge for example also uses affiliate links no matter what or how good the product is: "HP has found an exciting new way to DRM your printer!". (You also have to preserve your reputation by not recommending bad things.) Not to mention Retailers and brands cannot influence our coverage in any way — neither through sending us unsolicited products nor by paying for coverage. While we do run sponsored content, that is handled by a team separate from our editorial team and is clearly labeled. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu But it is not CNN that reviewed the product (a well known media organisation), but something that uses the CNN brand and leverages its (perception of) credibility and reach to generate income.

I still think they should be reliable Agreed, they should be, but aren't. And they aren't WP:INDEPENDENT because of their massive conflict of interest.

NYT Wirecutter is slightly different in the sense that The Wirecutter was a different company that was then acquired by NYT, but of course they also have a massive conflict of interest.

And you can't use conflict of interest spam to claim notability of course.

They have "rigorous" editorial policies No, they do not. CNN does, maybe. provides independent analysis and criticism no, they do not. How can they provide independent analysis when they make money with every sale? I know you know what independent means. does not have a reputation for errors It does not have a reputation at all. People just skip the ads. They have complete editorial independence, see the link I posted, so why do you act as if they are CNN?

past discussions of sources did not consider affiliate marketing a conflict of interest That seems irrelevant, there are other sources who might've been considered reliable sources in a different context in the past according to some random anonymous Wikipedians, but does that mean that we can therefore ignore our notability guideline and common sense? If you spend an hour digging in the archives you'll find a lot of bad ideas and opinions.

Adding affiliate links to every product is standard mainstream product-reviews practice For companies who make their money by promoting products and services and get a kickback for every customer they bring. But not for a reliable source.

You also have to preserve your reputation by not recommending bad things CNN Underscored has no reputation. CNN does, although it isn't great, and they are using it for some quick cash so I doubt they really care about it.

Retailers and brands cannot influence our coverage in any way — neither through sending us unsolicited products nor by paying for coverage. While we do run sponsored content, that is handled by a team separate from our editorial team and is clearly labeled. People lying on the internet? In the context of marketing? How dare they! Of course you can buy coverage. But the point was that you wrote: Every one of the six sources cited independently offer significant coverage of the subject, including two (CNN as if it was CNN who reviewed it, to prove notability, but it is not CNN and since they are getting paid it is not independent and therefore cannot be used to claim notability. https://info.wrightsmedia.com/cnn-underscored-licensing Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I meant to concede that it wasn't CNN with my "Thanks"; sorry that wasn't clear. I'm saying that Underscored seems to be a good source (though not nearly as stellar as CNN) in its own right.
I put "rigorous" in quotes because I was quoting the page you linked: Underscored team works with complete editorial independence and adheres to rigorous standards, make better purchasing decisions through rigorous and unbiased reviews. CNN does, maybe How do you know that they are rigorous? Is it not RSN's longstanding tradition of checking for page with published editorial guidelines and members (especially long ones), as Underscord also has? How do you know that Underscored is not rigorous? How can they provide independent analysis I think I meant "original" here, hence not just parroting the press releases; my bad. It does not have a reputation at all. People just skip the ads. I strongly disagree. A lot of people trust and use this site. As I've said before, even though they're not CNN, they're a mainstream reviews outlet. And like I said, if they persistently recommend bad things, consumers wouldn't trust it, and revenue would dry up.
some random anonymous Wikipedians i.e. consensus, WP:Consensus. We should start a discussion at RSN on whether affiliate marketing links count as sponsored content. I personally do not think they should, as they do not give any specific entities additional attention. Practically there's no impact of affiliate-linking everything on assessing reliability: either there's a pattern of exaggerations and falsehoods and lies or there's not. And even if you argue affiliate marketing emphasizes things too positively, any outlet can be too positive with or without affiliate links. I fail to see a practical reason to factor in the presence of affiliate marketing into whether material is usable or how that'd impact coverage in ways we can't assess otherwise.
But not for a reliable source. I do not know an MSM product (hardware, software, and accessories) reviews site that does not use affiliate links. In fact I don't even know any RS product review that don't except for some blogs like DistroWatch. You're proposing us throw out millions of citations on hardware, software, music, games, just because they have affiliate links. It's a lucky thing we're in the subscription streaming age, or your proposal would probably extend to film as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know any RS product review On second thought I'll trim that down to "product review outlet". You can't deny that MobileSyrup, CBC('s Life column which doesn't appear to be an independent thing like Underscored is), and USA Today have stellar reputations, and their reviews averaging about seven paragraphs each without any affiliate links should be enough to satisfy GNG on their own. Which makes the question of affiliate links rather moot. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu And like I said, if they persistently recommend bad things, consumers wouldn't trust it, and revenue would dry up. In an mathematically perfect world where every reader buys every product/service mentioned and then uses them and compares them to the others and forms a reasonable opinion about whether the advice given was correct, taking into account factors such as price and convenience and the needs of the average consumer. But in reality people tend to buy 1 of a product category, do not compare that product to every other product mentioned by Underscored, and have no clue if the advice given was good or bad.

I don't know anyone whose opinion I would trust in all these categories: the best bridal hair accessories, the best outdoor home security cameras, the best face sun screens and the best compost bins. It can easily take a decade or two to become a product category expert in, for example, laptops. So it confuses me that you keep defending Underscored when you (like most) are not in a position to judge them accurately. And since Underscored uses many reviewers in many product categories it is very very unlikely that one person can know all those product categories well enough to determine if Underscored makes good recommendations. You'd have to form a team and spend a very significant amount of money if you want to judge Underscored as a whole, right?

A lot of people trust and use this site Well, that is news to me.

i.e. consensus, WP:Consensus. Nah, a handful of sentences by a handful of random people does not consensus make; there are plenty of people with bad minority opinions.

You're proposing us throw out millions of citations on hardware, software, music, games, just because they have affiliate links. No, I am saying that if a website makes money from writing a review or an ad, we can't use the fact that its mentioned in that review or ad to say the product is notable. Because notability is derived from WP:INDEPENDENT sources. See WP:GNG. I am saying we need to follow the guideline (which describes the consensus).

Practically there's no impact of affiliate-linking everything on assessing reliability If you review a popular product and you think it is shit, and you know as a product category expert that there are many cheaper and better alternatives available that are far far less popular, wouldn't you be incentivized to be very positive about the expensive popular product instead of the cheap unpopular alternatives? Because promoting expensive and popular products keeps you employed and indirectly pays your rent, and telling people not to do that does not. More people will click the link if the product is popular and the site will get a larger commission. Of course you are an honest person, but not everyone on this planet is... see perverse incentive and Choice-supportive bias and all that. If I am a review website owner, and one of my reviewers consistently says that cheap Aliexpress alternatives are good enough for most people, and warns people not to fall for the hype and buy popular overpriced trash, why wouldn't I part ways with them?

Something like this is not a review but an ad for a Luxottica-owned brand, which artificially inflates the prices, gives discounts and then tells DiffusionPR to promote it. Diffusion left no stone unturned and connected with reporters well ahead of these busy shopping holidays, securing a consistent drumbeat of coverage in outlets like USA Today, Buzzfeed, Forbes, HuffPost, CNN Underscored, Insider, Rolling Stone, CNET, Mashable , and many more. They probably use the veneer of a review site because it is more effective than straight up sponsored content, although the process is the same. I do not live in a world with a lot of unbiased review sites who use affiliate links but just happen to be overly excited about boring products. Something like UserBenchmark is famously biased. Polygnotus (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to compare them; they just have to get a bad experience that doesn't match what they read from the article. there are plenty of people with bad minority opinions. But that was clearly not the minority. It was the entire discussion save for one or two that argued it could disqualify, the actual minority.
I don't know anyone whose opinion I would trust in all these categories Would you trust any single person whose opinion you would trust in all of the following: the Californian housing crisi, the impacts of the MTA's bond issuance fees, the latest season and contestants of "Island of Love", the movements of warfare in Ukraine, Kenyan killings and protests, Asian creepy furbies called "Labubu"s, and a warm front across the Northeastern United States? Which is why we all trust large editorial boards that hire an expert for each area. This argument does not apply to Underscored any more than NYT.
I don't understand; why is independence important for notability but not citing the same claim in undisclaimer'd wikivoice? [[WP:WHYN|The entire purpose of notability] is so that the wikivoice in articles can stand, so that articles that can cite such wikivoice exist. I don't see any reason to decouple this.
Expensive purchases are also a lot less likely to be bought, especially impulse-bought. There isn't much of an advantage to disproportionately because of the big difference in sales. I can also stretch more people will click the link to absurdity by citing ads on websites and saying websites with ads will promote and exaggerate human-interest stories, giving every subject a soft-news spin because it pays the rent.
The glasses article does not have affiliate links. I don't see what you mean by "artificially inflates the prices". Underscored does not make money from this article. Underscored writes articles on deals and sales and they were provided with the content from their mission statement on a silver platter and so they published it (cf. how the Heritage Foundation's free content gets parroted greatly even in liberal media, see Davis & Owen 1998). I don't see any reason that glasses article should be uncitable.
I don't think the case of UserBenchmark says anything. An experienced editor I had never previously encountered once fervently used all kinds of bad-faith arguments and tactics to try to remove or deface an article I created. I heavily doubt either of those were paid and think that both were just fanboying. It doesn't make sense for UserBenchmark to demean potential affiliate-marketing revenue sources either. Intel and AMD compete in very similar price ranges.
Frankly this thread is a bit exhausting and I'd rather wait for the in-general RSN discussion to continue this debate, especially as there's other sources cited that don't have affiliate links, which already give notability on their own, and definitely with the les affaires piece. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
they just have to get a bad experience that doesn't match what they read from the article If I have a disappointing experience with a single product, and I've never bought another product in that category and I know nothing about it (for example I buy the recommended face sun screen and I still get burned) I would assume I did it wrong and blame myself and not the review.

But that was clearly not the minority. The people who want to abandon WP:GNG and no longer want to require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY are a (tiny) minority.

This argument does not apply to Underscored any more than NYT. Indeed, but you are arguing they are reliable, and I am saying you can't judge their reliability unless you spend a lot of money and assemble a team of experts who know about photochemistry and pharmaceutical formulation and compost bins et cetera.

I don't understand; why is independence important for notability See WP:GNG. We demand independent sources to establish notability because otherwise anyone can throw some money around and be notable. If people independent of the subject of the article do not even mention it, it should not have a Wikipedia article.

but not citing the same claim in undisclaimer'd wikivoice? That is a different discussion, perhaps best suited for another venue.

There isn't much of an advantage to disproportionately because of the big difference in sales. I think there is a word or two missing in that sentence.

I can also stretch "more people will click the link" to absurdity...giving every subject a soft-news spin because it pays the rent. No, ragebaiting for clicks pays the rent. But not in the review site business.

The glasses article does not have affiliate links. Because it doesn't need to. Look at the HTML of that page. There are using a bunch of ways to track people.

I don't see what you mean by "artificially inflates the prices". Luxottica#Criticism

Underscored does not make money from this article. Ha! They must be publishing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Bless them.

Frankly this thread is a bit exhausting Agreed.

especially as there's other sources cited Yeah it kinda confused me that you focused on the Underscored thing because it is the weakest source you could've picked to defend, other than the press release perhaps. Polygnotus (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree that the other sources are enough? (I disagree that it's weak b/c I disagree about affiliate links but whatever.) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu No, I wouldn't AfD an article about a subject I think is notable. But I do think reasonable people can disagree, and we don't really have a line in the sand, so of course there is gonna be a gray area. Some people disagree with WP:GNG and that is fine but they are a small minority. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you don't think les affaires, CBC, MobileSyrup, and USA Today are enough? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Note also that the les affaires article is not independent, BetterSleep was co-founded by Simon Alex Bérubé who has known Alain McKenna (who wrote the article) for years.[3][4] They are the people on the left- and righthand side on the couch. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I see from that is McKenna interviewing Bérubé for their tech podcast a month after McKenna wrote the review. At least from the translated subtitles I don't see anything about a conflict of interest or years-long friendship. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu What do you think about merging to Teladoc Health? BetterSleep was acquired by Teladoc Health in 2021.[5] Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BetterSleep article can be expanded to cover the features the reviews found. I don't think that can be done if it were merged. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed may be of interest. Would you be interested in collaborating on improving these articles? For example, the paid editors who promoted Teladoc Health seem to have forgotten to mention the fact that it infringed on privacy on a massive scale, and shared sensitive health data with the likes of Meta.[6] Google something like "Teladoc FTC" and you'll find plenty of stuff. Same with BetterHelp.[7] There are also the class action lawsuits of course.[8][9] So its not just the customers who feel like victims; the investors do too. I think it would make more sense to follow the advice in WP:SPLIT and do a SIZESPLIT when there is enough content to warrant that. Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would be interested. I don't like making the page history more complicated by merging this in just for an inevitable split. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu Unsurprisingly, in my view that split is far from inevitable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can cover the features, even just the features mentioned in the reviews, in a merged article. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources from CBC and CNN are reliable, cover the subject in-depth, and are sufficiently independent from the app creator(s) to establish notability. The other sources are also probably reliable, but this alone is sufficient to establish notability. I don't think it's reasonable to delete an article on the unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Have you read the above? the unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review That is not what we were talking about... And of course these people were compensated for their work; did you expect them to be volunteers? sufficiently independent from the app creator(s) to establish notability Have you read WP:INDEPENDENT? You seem to be using your own definition. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflics of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's argument is far simpler than yours, and I'm much more inclined to prefer simple arguments to complex ones. Thanks for your time. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can tell. Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why so snide? HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated You appear to be implying that I made an unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review. which is a weird thing to claim because no one actually said that. We are talking about the notability of a subject of an Wikipedia article. To jump in with such a statement is counterproductive, because then the conversation turns into a meta-conversation about who said what and why and how that should be interpreted. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was based on the following: "People lying on the internet? In the context of marketing? How dare they! Of course you can buy coverage." Again, most of your arguments are contrived to begin with, so if this isn't what you meant, then you only have yourself to blame. My !vote stands as is. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit I didn't make the alleged unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review? Polygnotus (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding is that you did make such an assumption, but we have high-quality sources here, and your fixation on one part of one sentence of my rationale is clear evidence you're missing the forest for the trees. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Polygnotus is concerned that you don't understand his rationale of concern over affiliate links. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be, because their argument is total nonsense. There is a world of difference between sources with affiliate links and the sources WP: INDEPENDENT attempts to exclude. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a while someone shows up who claims that the words in the PaGs actually have a secret other meaning, which diverges from how any English speaker would interpret them. They'll say that they and they alone know how to interpret the mystical coded language. Following these prophets is very dangerous. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. The article does not have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references appear to be either trivial mentions, routine coverage (e.g., app listings, short reviews), or press releases. Yolandagonzales (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
App listings are not routine coverage. Is there a reason you believe they are?
And seven paragraphs is not short. And les affaires is independent and their entire article is about the app. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Aaron said. If it was a directory of apps (e.g. sourceforge), your argument would make sense, but these are independent reviews that are more than a trivial mention. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - CNN Underscored does have a rigorous editorial process. However, it still receives commission for products it ultimately decides to write about. As such, it cannot be considered independent as they have a stake in people reading and purchasing what they review. The Les Affaires reference looks good after a quick Google Translate. I am not sure there is a connection with the author other than speculation but if there is I would be open to hearing more. Can anyone point out WP:THREE that talk about the app in-depth (and do not have any type of stake in the game with affiliate links)?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]