Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wcquidditch (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 14 May 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OceanMD (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Technology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Technology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanMD

OceanMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG based on the references given. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing via indpendent, reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2025 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl car

Girl car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails notability guidelines and match original research; content may belong in a broader automotive marketing article or as part of a manufacturer's page. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article is short on examples and may need to be at a better title, one thing it is not short on is sourcing. This concept of cars that are associated with one gender or another of the purchaser is well-established as a legit topic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject matter remains current and additional reliable sources are easily found with a search; the article can have related marketing and gender discrepancy issues incorporated in expansion. LovelyLillith (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2025 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply Group PJSC

Multiply Group PJSC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article really lacks the sources with reliable and significant beyond trade press, with much of the coverage focusing primarily on purchasing or other events. Linkusyr (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2025 (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.
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. Complex/Rational 22:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Uchenna Emembolu

Charles Uchenna Emembolu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are not WP:RS and that renders this subject ineligible for an article Mekomo (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2025 (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.
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. asilvering (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Object-Oriented Persistence

Perl Object-Oriented Persistence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only two sources currently linked in the article are self-promotional (from the creator of the POOP system or instructional websites explaining Perl). WP:BEFORE search yields coverage of Object-oriented programming, but I'm not seeing significant coverage of this specific acronym or concept within reliable sources - so, POOP fails WP:NSOFT. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (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.
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 23:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Filatov (entrepreneur)

Alexander Filatov (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable promotional page from PR-account. Obvious violation WP:PAID. Кронас (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (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.
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 23:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest L. Cu

Ernest L. Cu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is too promotional, with no independent reliable references. I found only company media references, several interviews and brief mentions (so called WP Routine, WP Trades). Norlk (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple emoji

Pineapple emoji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any Sigcov per BEFORE, only the ref #6 source and the weak source like Bustle, thus failing notability. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could perhaps be a brief mention in an emoji article, but most of what i find is trivia [1] or random mentions online. I don't see enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the ref #6, isn't it a full article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and what is there (including ref 6) can be incorporated into other articles, eg ref 6 is more about the symbolism of pineapples and could be added to the article on pineapple. --hroest 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as major author of the article: Source analysis has not been properly conducted. The comment that Bustle is "weak" is not substantiated by why this would be so. The article is equivalent of around 16 Column inches devoted to this subject alone. There was not any attempt to address dictionary.com which is a solid source, used in hundreds of articles. Even the nom seems to admit that source #6, at Jane Austen Society of North America, is a full article about this subject, and the presence of "emoji" in the article title tells us that it is not about the fruit, but the symbol. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dictionary as a source is not a secondary and would not count to notability. Ref #6 is mixed since it also talked about the pineapple itself, not only the emoji. Bustle is weak when you check that source since the article is mentioning all the fruits, not only pineapple emoji (You really thought because of the headline title). When I checked the body of the article, it only says about pineapple emoji is "especially when you can post a bunch of pineapple emojis to your Snapchat story to get people scratching their heads instead." Yeah, Bustle and ref#6 is not enough, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's wide academic coverage of the Pineapple emoji use in Jane Austen adaptations [2][3][4][5][6][7]. There's brief coverage about its use as a synonym for weed. I would also support a merge to a section Pineapple#Symbolism if someone was up to write it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found something else it is notable for and put it on the page. Specifically, that it is a symbol used by swingers to indicate to other swingers that they are open to that activity. Additionally, there are sources that bolster this use like Cosmopolitan[1] and The Telegraph.[2] Therefore, I think at this point it meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and warrants inclusion. I am sure there are other sources that support the swinger notion, I just did a quick look. Apparently that is its most popular usage. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sources has zero mention about Pineapple emoji. You might did some "quick look", but you didn't checked properly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to fix that for redirect 2607:FEA8:3360:7600:CF58:1498:256F:1F37 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the 3 above Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is not a vote young guy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a60459870/upside-down-pineapple-meaning/
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/30/upside-down-pineapples-secret-symbol-spain-mercadona-stores/
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.
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 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford R. Kettemborough

Clifford R. Kettemborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like the sources are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. WP:Whoswho isn't reliable and doesn't count towards notability. It doesn't seem like this page meets any of the WP:NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (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.
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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket boots

Rocket boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. The refs are copies of the same sensationalist article. I didnt find and native Russian sources, and English sources for the term are something else. --Altenmann >talk 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find russian sources: [8] [9] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find anything in the English sources to support the use of the term "rocket boots". (And it's certainly incorrect from a technical perspective; based on the description, these boots are much more akin to piston engines than rockets.) The Times article avoids using any name for the boots at all, and the Dispatch article refers to them once each as "quickwalkers" and "fuel-powered superboots"; do the Russian sources give these contraptions any particular name? Omphalographer (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not a real product and didn't have name, usually it was called "Сапоги-скороходы" - in quotes - the Russian counterpart of Seven-league boots. Actually, it was a good question. Now I noticed the bureaucratic name of a model of the device, "устройство механизации бега" ("device for the mechanization of running", "run mechanization device") and this Russian term gives more hits, mostly anecdotes, probably not original. --Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (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.
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. asilvering (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity learn

Infinity learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it fails to demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources, relying instead on press releases and affiliated content. Its promotional tone and lack of in-depth third-party coverage make it unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the notability and reliance on affiliated sources. I've already removed several promotional or affiliated references and replaced them with some independent sources that I believe are more neutral and reliable.
Could you please guide me further on the kind of changes that would align this article with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Specifically:
  • Are there certain sources currently in the article that still do not meet the standard of independence and reliability?
  • Would adding coverage from particular types of third-party publications (e.g. newspapers, academic journals, industry reviews) help establish notability?
  • Are there tone-related areas you feel still read as promotional?
I'm eager to improve the article and would appreciate any specific suggestions you can offer to help bring it in line with Wikipedia's expectations. Mahendra2601 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahendra2601 Just a quick question, were you paid for creating this article? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not paid to create this article. I came across a podcast of their CEO, talking about ai integration from school level which made me feel it deserved a proper page on Wikipedia. My intentions are purely to contribute meaningfully based on public interest and available verifiable information. If you have any suggestions or concerns about the content, I’m happy to discuss and improve it further. Mahendra2601 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I G11'd this last time it was created and this version is not fundamentally better. Sourcing does not satisfy WP:ORGIND, essentially consisting of rehashed press releases. ~ A412 talk! 14:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article again and cited only reliable source only. Please have a look and let me know if i need to make any further change. correct it grammatically Mahendra2601 (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The writing has improved but the sourcing has not. I continue to not see any sources that pass the intellectual independence bar of WP:ORGIND, all being based on announcements provided directly by the company. ~ A412 talk! 17:15, 8 May 2025 (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.
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 keep argumens, newly added sigcov, WP HEY (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GR8 Tech

GR8 Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable gambling company, sourced mostly with WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in reality that is a notable and big firm in its gambling field with a shady past and interesting details. The notability derives from the sourcing in gambling related newspapers online, and also from the sanctioned parimatch/tech(previous name changed to avoid sanctions and ties with suspicious organisations). Such sigcov link tell a lot about shadow activities [10], here [11] and others. The page should be rebalanced though. Norlk (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new relialbe sources with significant coverage. Classic WP HEY. Linkusyr (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2025 (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.
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 03:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Card

Honest Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet criteria of WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT or the broader WP:GNG. Every citation in the article is either the company’s own web domains, lightly rewritten press‑release items in local Indonesian business blogs (Infobanknews, Techverse.Asia, Kontan, Republika, Warta Ekonomi, Kompas), or brief venture‑funding notices (e.g. Preqin’s one‑sentence financing blurb). None offers the significant, independent, secondary coverage that policy requires. A thorough news‑database and web search turned up nothing beyond routine funding announcements and product‑launch snippets, which are explicitly classed as WP:ROUTINE and thus insufficient for notability.

The subject is also very young, so any claim to lasting notability is WP:TOOSOON. The article’s promotional tone, product‑feature list, and heavy reliance on primary sources underscore the absence of neutral, verifiable coverage. With no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the topic fails Wikipedia’s organisational notability standard. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respectfully oppose the deletion of the Honest Card Wikipedia page for several important reasons:
The company has demonstrated significance beyond routine announcements. Their $19.7 million Series A funding represents substantial investor confidence, they've secured official licensing from Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK), and have achieved over 1 million users on Google Play Store Indonesia.
While applying WP:GEOSCOPE, we should recognize that Honest Card has particular regional significance in Indonesia, a nation of 270+ million people. Several cited sources are established Indonesian publications with journalistic standing. Kompas is Indonesia's largest newspaper, while Infobanknews, Republika, Kontan, and Warta Ekonomi are recognized business publications that have provided independent coverage beyond press releases.
Regarding WP:TOOSOON concerns, Honest Card has already achieved significant milestones that suggest notability: governmental licensing, major funding, Mastercard partnership, and substantial user adoption. These aren't preliminary achievements but established accomplishments.
Rather than deletion, I suggest we follow Wikipedia's collaborative spirit by improving the page: adding more independent sources as they become available, addressing any promotional tone, and expanding context about Indonesia's fintech sector. Geraeldo Sinaga (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:59, 13 May 2025 (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.
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. asilvering (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asteria Aerospace

Asteria Aerospace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:CORPTRIV. References are routine business news. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep Delete, Having searched for Asteria Aerospace I have found a few articles spread over a range of different times that provide coverage with it as the main or a significant focus of the coverage, and so appear to provide notability. I would appreciate if someone else would take a look though, especially to verify that the sources are reliable, which they seem to be on a surface level.
The following is just a list to those articles if you want to take a look:
Emily.Owl (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these press release based. Routine annoucements that fail WP:CORPTRIV and WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, when you had said routine business news I had thought more along the lines of announcements about leadership, goals, fundraising, etc.
But if that is routine (which it probably is) then yeah it probably does fail for sufficient notability. Emily.Owl (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Emily.Owl: If you look at the first reference there. There is no byline, so that makes it suspect already. It means its not under editorial control, or no editor has actually looked at it. It just a seo tech author putting it together to look like a proper story, but there is no journalistic process. 2ndly, look at what it says: "full-stack drone technology company proudly announces". Nobody write like that unless its promotional branding. 3rdly, you can take the block of text to search if you see commonalities of names, images, specific statements, common statements and so on. If you searched here for example: "This significant milestone underscores Asteria's commitment to Atmanirbhar Bharat" it pops up a company press release on their website: [12] showing its a paid for branding exercise. It is PR. But it is not always press release companies like pressnote.in. Other times it takes some work to devine the information true source, which may be actually be the journalist. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It very much does help for future note, so thanks for telling me now. Emily.Owl (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2 here fails WP:ORGIND absolutely. Ref is a profile, an advert is non-rs. They are absolute junk. Classic WP:NEWSORGINDIA scope_creepTalk 18:41, 18 May 2025 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleDOG Post Production

PurpleDOG Post Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding enough sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. All of the sources listed in the article fail in significant coverage. Additionally, an internet search did not turn up anything else of note. Maybe a Canadian film editor knows of more sources? JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 10 May 2025 (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.
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 no consensus‎. After a thorough readthrough, I do not see consensus emerging after an initial listing, deletion review, and a subsequent relisting that has been open nearly a month. Currently, there are a large number of sources whose independence are disputed by the participants in the discussion. We don't seem to be making much headway, so I think it is time for this discussion to come to a close. Malinaccier (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

AfDs for this article:
Quintessential (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 22 closed with no consensus and I decided it was appropriate to relist. Procedural nomination, no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Commander Keane says: Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.
Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary Satisfies GNG
1 Australian Financial Review Paywalled report of purchase of a building Yes Probably Yes Probably No. Fails verifiability.
2 www.smh.com.au Discussion of recent activity by company Yes Yes, just barely Yes Yes Yes
3 Australian Financial Review Paywalled Yes Probably Yes Probably No. Fails verifiability.

If the proponents can't find any non-paywalled sources, then respect for the core policy of verifiability should be to move this into draft space until the proponents can pass the Heymann test by finding viewable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Lindsay, Nicole (14 March 2018). "Quintessential's opportunity fund ready to roll". The Sydney Morning Herald. (also in current article)
 – I would say between 40 to 80 percent of the article is quotes from the company, but I am willing to tentatively accept it on ORGIND Yes – The bigger issue is that the non-quote content is heavily WP:ORGTRIV – and I am not fully convinced that it demonstrates the author's own analysis or evaluation —
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2476776820)
 – Yes – Fairly similar to the above, maybe slightly better in terms of detail. If these are the best sources available, I would be inclined to exclude – —
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 3074029294) (also currently ref 3)
 Yes I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND Yes No but it falls further from addressing the company itself directly or in-detail – realistically, there is analysis here, and good analysis, but more about the (CBD office) real estate market than any of the companies
Lenaghan, Nick (22 September 2014). "Quintessential time to sell-five asset portfolio". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1748982798)
 – Yes No Less detailed than the other Lenaghan article, or the SMH. Not much to say. –
Thomson, James (8 March 2024). "Meet the bravest investor in office property". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest has 3 different versions, 3063607564 is one)
 No The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces Yes No Yes
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.
 – Yes – I would disagree this has meaningful independent analysis, but it's not significantly worse than the SMH. I would place it between that and the 2014 Lenaghan. – —
Wilmot, Ben (3 July 2024). "Quintessential agrees to pay $250m for Brisbane CBD tower". The Australian. (ProQuest 3074848171)
 Yes Yes – Actually relatively good on the other criteria, but it's not clear to me we can say much about the company with the content therein Yes —
and I think I'll finish off my first round of reviews with ref 1 currently in the article, since the other two were already listed:
Schlesinger, Larry (4 March 2015). "Quintessential Equity pays $32m for 360 Capital's Canberra building". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1747550524)
 – Yes No Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan. No
For my second round or reviews, we'll start with the one Commander Keane noted as promising, which I believe would be:
Brown, Greg (22 August 2013). "Shane Quinn won't yield on incentives". The Australian. (ProQuest 1426541389)
 No Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND Yes – –
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)
 No Look, the main issue with these "We bought this, this is why this is a good deal for us" (other than the fact that they're mostly quotes) Yes No is, of course they're going to make vague waves about how they're a good company doing good deals. No investment manager is going to go up to a news company and say "here's how we do a bad job with our clients' money". – There's analysis here, but almost all of it is "invest in us, here is what we say our strategy is, it's very good", and it's from the company.
Lenaghan, Nick (17 March 2021). "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide's high-tech precinct". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2501830229)
 – I think I would put this at around the Tauriello article. Yes – The last and 5th from last paragraphs are mostly what I'd look at. Though, I wonder if looking at all the (marginal) Lenaghan articles as a single source could be an option. – —
Lenaghan, Nick (18 June 2014). "Quintessential considers Canberra buys essential". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1749585511)
 No Yes No I would say this is less useful than the (other) 2014 and North Ryde articles by Lenaghan, and would not have useful content even if combined. –
"Quintessential wins $120m WorkSafe building in Geelong". Australian Financial Review. 16 February 2016. (ProQuest 1765335569)
 – Yes No I don't think the middle bit is useful SIGCOV for this company, and the rest is ORGTRIV stuff. –
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 – Yes – Honestly I think this one might be the best one yet, either that or the Visy article by Lenaghan – —
Johanson, Simon (10 November 2015). "Cashed-up investors prompt funds managers to sell". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 – Yes No I would say this is something like the Schlesinger article, where there is not enough directly about the company, out of the independent secondary content. –
Tauriello, Giuseppe (7 November 2023). "Quintessential secures third tenant for upgraded Telstra building". The Australian. (ProQuest 2887105309)
 – Yes – Slightly worse than the other Tauriello article, and I don't think combining the two would help much even if we wanted to do that. – —
Wilmot, Ben (23 September 2014). "Quintessential in $90m sell-off". The Australian. (ProQuest 1563927930)
 No I was about to mark it as fully passing ORGIND until I realised Bishop was the person handling the sale (it did say that in the article, just missed it initially) Yes No This is really the heart of ORGTRIV, where the only information in there is useful about that one specific transaction. –
Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, that took a bit more out of me than I expected (hence the long break as well), so I don't think I'll be looking for any more sources yet. But, overall, I don't think the available sources quite clear what we want to for WP:NCORP, though there are a few I might be convinced are valid, like the Visy article by Lenaghan or WorkSafe by Johanson. I'd be happier if the three best sources more clearly featured direct and in-depth information (better than either of those two) about the company that also meets the second half of ORGIND though, so at the moment I'm still leaning towards a delete, or back to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete based on the source analysis above and the fact that the article is basically devoid of useful information, except that company bought property X and sold it for Y dollars. --hroest 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are finely balanced on the keep/delete axis and I would rather not close as another no-consensus given the recent history. I would particularly like to hear from User:Commander Keane, User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, and User:MCE89, if they are willing, as to their views on the source analysis User:Alpha3031 has been kind enough to perform and whether they maintain their keep !votes in its light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed both source analysis and I agree with @MCE89's assessment below finding that those sources are sufficient for notability. I think the article should be kept as long as we don't go back to the COI/promotional version. 🄻🄰 11:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    • Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg.  The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [30] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
    • Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
    • Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
    • Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think ORGIND and NORG in general has been tightening in response to spam over the years, and there is an argument that we could have gone too far, but at the moment the balance is a considerably stricter standard than other topic areas which probably deletes some articles which are probably not too spammy but still probably lets a lot of spam through. Hard balance to strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.
    I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.
    The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.
 Yes This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time Yes Yes Tells us that Quintessential is considered a savvy buyer with a focus on quality assets, that it is looking for an exposure to the city which is expected to benefit from the 2032 Olympics, and that the boutique property house has been linked to a series of office deals amid a change in the investment cycle. It also distinguishes this potential deal from Quintessential's past purchase strategy, saying that its most recent purchase in Adelaide was a refurbishment and repositioning play while this Brisbane building is in the luxury market Yes Provides secondary analysis of what the potential deal says about the market and about Quintessential's strategy
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review.
 Yes Yes Yes I disagree that this one falls short of addressing Quintessential itself directly. It says that Quintessential is one of the few investor groups buying up CBD office towers, and that its thesis for doing so is based around securing them at or near the bottom of the market and in better performing markets such as Brisbane where vacancy rates are lower and A-Grade rents are still rising amid a flight to quality. It also says that it is able to do so because of its loyal investor base and that part of its motivation for its purchases is to improve its ESG credentials. Yes Strikes me as providing meaningful secondary analysis regarding the author's thesis for why Quintessential is one of the few investors buying CBD office towers
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 Yes Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence Yes Yes Explains what is distinct about Quintessential's strategy - that it has stamped a presence in the office space by buying, regenerating and re-leasing older buildings in Canberra and NSW to government and other tenants - and provides an overview of its historical purchases and development pipeline. Yes This appears to be original, secondary analysis of the company's historical buying strategy and a brief overview of its pipeline
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review.
 Yes Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view Yes Yes Places this particular lease in the context of the longer-term view the fund manager and syndicator is taking on the prospect of disruption in the industrial market, giving some analysis of what this disruption might look like, and explains that Quintessential’s strategy is to acquire and regenerate value-add and core-plus commercial office and industrial properties in CBD and city fringe markets. Yes This also strikes me as original, secondary analysis by the article's author, explaining how this particular deal connects to other purchases that Quintessential has made and that it "vindicates" Quintessential's original purchase of the asset.
MCE89 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MCE89, all of those sources are based on company announcements. Sometimes it is obvious, such as when the article directly attributes the information as having originated from the company ("announced", "confirmed", etc). Also next time, might be worthwhile checking to see if the "story" is covered by another publication and carries the same information - if so, you'd have to agree that for something to contain "independent content" (as per ORGIND) then the article has to have something kinda unique. So this source isn't "independent" because, on the same day, this entirely "different" article has the exact same information. Similarly, this article mirrors the Sydney Morning Herald article. HighKing++ 15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s just not true at all. The fact that two publications report on the same event doesn’t make them non-independent sources. If you read the sources that you claim “mirror” one another, you will see that they are distinct articles reporting on the same event. A newsworthy event like a major property acquisition is obviously often going to be reported on by multiple publications. And the fact that an article contains things like “the company confirmed” or “the company announced” does not make that source non-independent, as long as the source also contains independent analysis of the company’s announcement. For instance, think of all the stories that begin with “the Trump administration announced (some new policy)” and then provide analysis of that policy announcement - the fact that they are “based on” an announcement by the administration obviously doesn’t make them non-independent souces. And what about the first two sources in the above table, which are clearly not just regurgitating company announcements? MCE89 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you remove the duplication that appears in both articles and the content which originated from company sources (which appears to include all the "facts and figures", a "feature" of all Quintessential announcements), what precisely is left? If you're pushing that what is left is an "independent analysis" you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company? I don't see any independent "analysis" of the announcement. As for the first source, did you even read it? Point out where I can find any in-depth independent content *about the company* - not rumour and gossip about a potential upcoming business deal or details about other property. The second article is about a property slump in Brisbane, using the topic company's announcement of price paid vs what was previously floated as a potential price to underpin the assertions, half of the article isn't even about the topic company. Here's an article published on the same day with the same facts and numbers about the deal. In my experience, when you get articles published on the same day covering the same event, they're rarely going to meet NCORP because they regurgitate the same information provided to them by the company. HighKing++ 09:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company. Did you not see the table you're replying to where I did exactly that? I pointed out the paragraphs and sentences that, in my view, provide significant independent analysis. For instance, the first source explains that Quintessential's previous deal in Adelaide was to refurbish a building, but it's been linked to a series of deals involving more upmarket office buildings amid a change in the investment cycle, and that this deal in particular would give it greater exposure to the Brisbane market ahead of the 2032 Olympics. I don't see how that could possibly fall into the category of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" or "brief or passing mentions". MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're probably at an impasse. You want to say that the first article is good - its mostly about rumours and gossip and most of the article talks about the Brisbane commercial property market in general. ORGTRIV also includes as examples, routine coverage of capital transactions. Most of the article deals with the Bris Nor does the article fit any of the descriptions of WP:SUBSTANTIAL, nor can you say it meets CORPDEPTH's definition: "[D]eep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". At most, you could say that there are a total of 6 sentences in that article which are about the company - that simply isn't sufficent to meet "deep or significant" requirement. HighKing++ 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey DCsansei, there's been a lot of discussion ranging over many weeks involving the references listed by MCE89. I've pointed out why those sources fail GNG/NCORP. Your !vote is very vague and potentially meaningless since it doesn't attempt to engage in any discussion. Can you perhaps try to identify which sources meet NCORP/ORGIND by reference to particular paragraphs? HighKing++ 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per other sources found above. The company has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources. This includes AFR, The Urban Developer, and Business News Australia. The awards from RICS and others further support its recognition within the industry. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2025 (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.

HackMiami

HackMiami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.
large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, hoping to have additional discussion for whether keep/delete or other to have a clear consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 no consensus‎. which does not preclude a merger which can be handled editorially. Consensus to delete is not going to emerge here, and we do not need a further relist Star Mississippi 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

Austral Launch Vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Draftify: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [31], [32], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. Given this, a merge into Australian Space Agency a broader topic would preserve this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE, or it could be draftified for further development and sourcing. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.
I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After checking through all of the references you've added, I still do not see evidence of significant or sustained independent coverage. Every source was published between 2014 and 2017, seemingly because the project stalled after that point, and even within that period of active development the coverage is scant. Preller and Smart's works barely mention the ALV, while the ABC and AFR articles mention it only in passing. Aerospace magazine gives a bit more detail, but its coverage is still extremely brief (and focused on SPARTAN, not the ALV). The iTnews article also provides no significant coverage of the ALV, mostly consists of quotes from individuals involved in the project about the potential of reusable launch vehicles. Ditto for the articles in the Register and New Atlas. None of these sources, besides the initial three (non-independent) sources already present in the article, provide coverage that could be considered significant. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources disagree on terminology. In some articles, the SPARTAN second stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "Austral Launch Vehicle" project. In others, the Austral Launch Vehicle first stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "SPARTAN" project.
    What I know is that the overall 3-stage project is notable. Perhaps the answer is to rename this article to something else. I'm open to suggestions.
    I'm also open to draftifying the article and I will work on it. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The plot thickens.
    It looks like a company formed in 2019, Hypersonix Launch Systems, took over work on the SPARTAN second stage and tested it in 2021. This project, Heliaq Advanced Engineering (ALV's original developer now defunct?) and Hypersonix all have close ties to the University of Queensland's Centre for Hypersonics.
    Also in 2021, the U.S., U.K. and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021; it included "Hypersonic and Counter-Hypersonic Capabilities" which built on the existing joint U.S.-Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic cruise missile project. The University of Queensland is involved in this as well.
    At the time, hypersonics was touted as Australia's flagship contribution to an agreeement that was mostly about nuclear submarine technology.
    I'm just guessing but Hypersonix and U of Q probably shifted to much more lucrative defense work and away from competing with SpaceX and everyone else. All 3 countries are far behind Russia and China in hypersonic capabilities.
    Collectively all this content is notable and needs a good home on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where -- suggestions? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to help with any of the heavy lifting if you decide to draftify. Feel free to ping me for sourcing or the write-up. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @A. B., the first 7 (existing) sources in the article are from researchers Smart, Schutte, Thoreau, and Preller, all directly tied to UQ/HAE and the ALV project, making them primary sources. Of the next 7 (new) sources you added, only two are solid WP:THREE candidates: The Register offers clear, independent coverage of ALV, and Financial Review provides balanced coverage, though it includes a few quotes from Smart. Three are borderline: ABC is heavily reliant on Smart's quotes, Aviation Week gives technical context but doesn’t focus on ALV, and New Atlas covers ALV under the broader SPARTAN project with heavy developer input. The remaining two, AEROSPACE and iTnews, are weak as they rely almost entirely on developer statements. To be fair, by Australian standards, Smart is not just a typical researcher. He’s a recognized expert in hypersonics who spent a decade at NASA before joining UQ ([33]), which is quite an uncommon profile. This prominence likely explains why he appears in nearly every source on ALV, sometimes tipping the balance on journalistic independence. HerBauhaus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2025 (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.
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. Discussions are closed on the quality of the comments, not the number, and too many of the "keep" comments gave arguments to avoid, particularly it's useful / important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app)

Canopy (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are all kinds of minor products on wikipedia. Documenting tech history is part of what we use wikipedia for. ShipRush2 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strong delete. No significant coverage; only blogs, one review, and CEO citations or brief one-line mentions that such an app exists. The IBTimes source should be removed from the page per WP:IBTIMES (perennial source). Cinder painter (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated: "It was rated among the leading parental control apps of 2025 and cited as “best for blocking explicit content." Ovedc (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why delete an article that is well-rounded and provides sourced information about a product that many parents are looking for? Citadelian (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citadelian, I recommend you gain more experience for how it's determined whether or not article subjects have notability before weighing in on any more AFD discussions. The fact that someone out there might find an article helpful at some future time does not influence whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 13 May 2025 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=1290321433"