Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

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 redirect‎ to AN/MPN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System

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

The AN/MPN-14K is a modified AN/MPN-14 which is fully described in the article AN/MPN. There is a wikilink to the -14K article within the AN/MPN article which is wholly unnecessary since the -14K article does not meet general notability and the -14K article has no citations at all. I recommend the -14K article be deleted (merge unnecessary). — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: When a merge is "unnecessary", the title gets redirected to the main article. Someone searching the topic with the -14K included will then be brought to that page, instead of being left thinking that Wikipedia does not cover the topic. This discussion did not really need to be brought up; the redirection of the page could simply have been done. I'm just sitting here, watching the wheels go round and round... (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the subject seems to largely replicate the subject covered by AN/MPN. Not seeing a case for independent notability or any merging. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 22 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 00:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahau (software)

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

Contested PROD. Not seeing any additional independent sources outside the two currently in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spinoff source checks all the boxes, but I don't think a 12-min podcast interview w/ founder satisfies GNG. I found a mention in a master's thesis, a mention in short article about hackathon, and a little writeup in an academic report of some kind, but the writeup is only sourced to the company website. I will say that searching for sources was quite difficult given Ahau seems to mean I/me in the Maori language - many unrelated hits to wade through - it's possible I missed something. If more sigcov in RS can't be located I think a great alternative would be to start an article about Indigenous data sovereignty w/ a section on Maori, as the overarching topic seems notable (lots of scholarship and reporting), I'm just not convinced this specific startup is. Zzz plant (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think the sources, especially the lengthy Spinoff article almost qualify the article for inclusion and "I want to believe" (WP:ILIKEIT). Nevertheless, I must respect our notability guidelines and I spent 15 minutes looking. Ping me if someone turns something up. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, requires more notability to justify inclusion. Every piece of software does not warrant its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. First, a couple of clarifications. The "podcast" linked as a source was originally broadcast on RNZ, the NZ public radio broadcaster (akin to BBC in the UK or NPR in the US), which is why it's on their website. This is not a business article about a "startup", it's a tech article about a pioneering open source project, created by and for indigenous people. I invite those proposing deletion to stop and consider the speedy deletion of "DEI" content on US public services websites, and check that implicit bias is playing no part is dismissing this topic as unworthy of a WP article. It's hard to find sources that meet WP standards because of precisely that bias, as well as international media bias against relatively small countries and population. Surely a mention in an academic thesis, combined with the Spinoff and RNZ links, make it worth leaving the article in place for now, with a "needs more sources" flag? DanylStrype — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no purpose to a 'need more sources tag' if more sources don't exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A RNZ podcast should probably count as a source with editorial oversight, just as blogs maintained by news media are normally exempt from our “no blogs” rule. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that the RNZ is a RS, and for what it's worth they do seem to describe it themselves as a podcast - although my understanding is that interviews (regardless of outlet) don't usually count towards GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of comparison, WP has an article on AntennaPod. A podcast-listening app, of which there are dozens on Android alone, many of them open source. Ahau is a unique P2P network software project, using a novel protocol (Secure Scuttlebutt) created by indigenous people to securely store, and selectively share, their genealogical memory. This isn't notable enough, despite local news media references, but one of many podcast apps is? Again, I'm tapping the implicit bias sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Sasada

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

This article about a programmer and academic has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three external links, but these don't help with notability (two interviews and a blog post with a translation of work by Sasada). I may be missing sources in Japanese, but with what I have found I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Heroku is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Technology, Computing, Japan, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPROF and I dont see enough in-depth coverage to justify notability as a Ruby developer per WP:GNG. --hroest 20:53, 15 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.

Kennedy Ekezie

AfDs for this article:

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

This entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 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!} 23:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [1] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [2] - and La Vanguardia - [3] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 29 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 03:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei ICT Competition

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

Non-notable academic competition, created by an account now blocked for socking after Draft:Huawei ICT Competition was repeatedly declined at AfC. Sources here are a piece of sponsored content and a regurgitated press release. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; strong evidence of being created by the sockfarm that promotes non-notable Huawei-related topics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Technology. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tan, Yin 谭印 (2024). "基于华为ICT大赛为载体"课-证-赛"融通的ICT产业人才培养模式的改革研究大家平台" [Reforming ICT Talent Development: An Integrated 'Course-Certification-Competition' Model Based on the Huawei ICT Competition – Dajia Platform]. 中文科技期刊数据库（文摘版） [Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (Abstract Edition)] (in Chinese). No. 2. ISSN 1671-5624. Retrieved 2025-05-18 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "高技能人才已经成为国家的重要战略资源,培养高技能人才是应用型本科教育实现高端发展优化人才结构的必然选择。应用型本科教育急需创新体现类型教育特征的育人模式,桂林电子科技大学北海校区(以下简称桂电北海校区)多年协办华为ICT大赛区赛,在推广运营华为ICT大赛的过程中,建设了“课-证-赛”融通的ICT产业人才培养体系,全面将华为职业认证和华为ICT大赛比赛内容融入ICT产业人才培养课程体系中。"
  From Google Translate: "Highly skilled talents have become an important strategic resource for the country. Cultivating highly skilled talents is an inevitable choice for applied undergraduate education to achieve high-end development and optimize the talent structure. Applied undergraduate education urgently needs to innovate the education model that reflects the characteristics of type education. Guilin University of Electronic Technology Beihai Campus (hereinafter referred to as Guidian Beihai Campus) has co-organized Huawei ICT Competition for many years. In the process of promoting and operating Huawei ICT Competition, it has built an ICT industry talent training system integrating "course-certificate-competition", and fully integrated Huawei professional certification and Huawei ICT Competition content into the ICT industry talent training curriculum system."
2. Wang, Lei 王磊 (2019-03-12). Yuan, Xin 袁昕; Fan, Haixu 樊海旭 (eds.). "华为ICT大赛非洲优胜四队将赴华参加全球决赛" [Four Top African Teams to Compete in Huawei ICT Global Final in China]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-18. Retrieved 2025-05-18.
  The article notes: "本届ICT大赛以“联接、荣耀和未来”为口号，以云计算，人工智能，移动网络和大数据等最新ICT技术为竞赛内容，吸引了非洲地区11个国家、100余所高校的28,000余名学生参与。最终共有14支队伍共42名选手通过国家初赛、决赛进入区域决赛。"
  From Google Translate: "This ICT competition is based on the slogan of "Connection, Glory and Future", and the latest ICT technologies such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, mobile networks and big data are the competition content. It has attracted more than 28,000 students from 11 countries and more than 100 universities in Africa. In the end, a total of 14 teams and 42 players passed the national preliminary and finals to enter the regional finals."
  The article notes: "华为ICT大赛是一项全球性的ICT人才竞技交流赛事，面向全球的华为授权信息与网络技术学院（简称华为ICT学院）及开设相关专业的院校。自2015年举办首届华为ICT大赛以来，大赛参与人数呈指数级增长，目前已成为ICT领域全球规模最大的赛事之一。本届大赛共吸引了全球50多个国家1000余所高校的8万名学生参与。"
  From Google Translate: "The Huawei ICT Competition is a global ICT talent competition and exchange event for Huawei authorised information and network technology colleges (Huawei ICT Colleges) and colleges and universities with related majors around the world. Since the first Huawei ICT Competition was held in 2015, the number of participants has grown exponentially, and it has now become one of the world's largest events in the ICT field. This year's competition attracted 80,000 students from more than 1,000 universities in more than 50 countries around the world."
3. Chen, Feng 陈峰; Wen, Weiwei 文卫蔚; Wu, Ying 吴颖 (2025-04-03). "武职大两支队伍晋级" [Two Teams from Wuzhou Vocational University Advance]. Chutian Metropolis Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-18. Retrieved 2025-05-18 – via Hebei Daily.
  The article notes: "华为ICT大赛实践赛全面考查参赛学生的ICT理论知识储备、上机实践能力及团队协作能力，包含网络赛道、云赛道、基础软件赛道和昇腾AI赛道，其中云赛道比赛内容包含云、大数据、AI等技术方向的相关知识；基础软件赛道考核内容则涵盖openEuler、openGauss和Kunpeng应用开发等技术方向的相关知识。"
  From Google Translate: "The Huawei ICT Competition practical competition comprehensively examines the ICT theoretical knowledge reserves, computer practical skills, and teamwork skills of participating students, including network track, cloud track, basic software track, and Ascend AI track. The cloud track competition content includes relevant knowledge of technical directions such as cloud, big data, and AI; the basic software track assessment content covers relevant knowledge of technical directions such as openEuler, openGauss, and Kunpeng application development."
  The article notes: "据悉，华为ICT大赛自2015年举办以来，影响力日益增强，已被纳入全国普通高校大学生竞赛项目榜单。第九届华为ICT大赛中国地区报名人数突破14万，覆盖全国31个省份及直辖市的1618所高校，创历史新高。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that since the Huawei ICT Competition was held in 2015, its influence has been increasing, and it has been included in the list of college student competitions in ordinary colleges and universities across the country. The number of applicants in the 9th Huawei ICT Competition in China exceeded 140,000, covering 1,618 colleges and universities in 31 provinces and municipalities across the country, setting a historical record."
4. "华为ICT大赛澳门站圆满举行" [Huawei ICT Competition Successfully Held in Macau]. Hou Kong Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2024-12-04. p. A5.
  The article notes: "ICT大赛已在澳门续举办四届，是次比赛反应热烈，吸引近800名学生参与。经过数月的网上培训、初赛筛选及多轮专业评审，共有25支队伍晋级决赛争夺奖项。"
  From Google Translate: "The ICT competition has been held in Macau for four consecutive years. This year's competition received a warm response, attracting nearly 800 students to participate. After several months of online training, preliminary screening and multiple rounds of professional review, a total of 25 teams advanced to the finals to compete for awards."
5. Wong, Yuet-san 王玥晨 (2023-12-06). "華為ICT大賽香港站圓滿落幕助港澳育創科人才共建國際人才高地" [Huawei ICT Competition Concludes in Hong Kong, Supporting Innovation Talent Development in Hong Kong and Macau, and Fostering a Global Talent Hub]. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-18. Retrieved 2025-05-18.
  The article notes: "ICT大賽已在港連續舉辦三屆，是次比賽反應熱烈，參賽人數再創新高，吸引本港11間大專院校近900名學生參與。經過數月的網上培訓、初賽篩選及多輪專業評審，共有18支隊伍晉級決賽。雲賽道（Cloud）冠軍由香港理工大學的「PCG」隊摘得，香港大學的「去中心化分布式點讚」隊和香港理工大學的「Zzz」隊分獲亞軍和季軍。計算賽道（Computing）冠軍為香港城市大學的「Tech Savvy」隊，亞軍和季軍分別為職業訓練局的「Open Sauce」隊和香港理工大學的「PolyEngineer」隊。"
  From Google Translate: "The ICT competition has been held in Hong Kong for three consecutive years. This year's competition received an enthusiastic response, with the number of participants reaching a new high, attracting nearly 900 students from 11 local tertiary institutions to participate. After several months of online training, preliminary screening and multiple rounds of professional evaluation, a total of 18 teams advanced to the finals. The Cloud track champion was won by the "PCG" team from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, while the "Decentralized Distributed Likes" team from the University of Hong Kong and the "Zzz" team from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University won the second and third place respectively. The champion of the Computing track was the "Tech Savvy" team from City University of Hong Kong, the first runner-up and the second runner-up were the "Open Sauce" team from the Vocational Training Council and the "PolyEngineer" team from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University respectively."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huawei ICT Competition (simplified Chinese: 华为ICT大赛; traditional Chinese: 華為ICT大賽) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Withdrawing nomination in light of Chinese sources identified by Cunard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 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.

SQL Star

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of its media coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and WP:RSNOI. Fails WP:NCORP AndySailz (talk) 09:44, 28 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Industries

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

Article about a tech company, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on third-party coverage about them and their activities in real media -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as the company's own press releases and directory entries and the self-published websites of non-media organizations with direct business relationships with this company, none of which are support for notability. What little there is for reliable coverage comes almost entirely from limited-circulation tech industry trade publications rather than general market media, except for a single article in an alt-weekly which isn't enough to vault the company over GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that the creator moved it into articlespace themselves without a proper WP:AFC review, even though their edit history suggests a possible (but not certain) conflict of interest (i.e. their very first edit was to post a Requested Articles request for an article about this very company, before immediately proceeding to draft and move it themselves a week later.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to be the subject of proper GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete while the article has issues with WP:PROMO and may need a substantial rewrite, I do see some SIGCOV: here and here and they did seem to have won some sort of award/recognition: [4]. Overall the WP:THREE best sources are not that impressive and given the state of the current article I think deletion is the best way to go unless someone substantially improves the article. --hroest 21:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - another corporate wreck of a page strangled by promotional material, press releases from "live wire" services, other unreliable sources, and trivial claims. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO. It's a straightforward delete. Charlie (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. JSFarman (talk) 20:30, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanMD

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources I saw were either press releases or WP:ORGTRIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per failing WP:NCORP. Sources are PR or primary to the subject. Can't find any WP:RS. Patre23 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single reliable source. If they paid for this promotion, they were robbed. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough RSes to justify inclusion. Every company does not warrant its own page, they must meet the WP:GNG which this does not. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't able to find any trustworthy sources to support the content of this page. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Sethi752 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks reliable sources.looks like a promotional attempt. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any reliable sources. Not notable enough and I agree with the hilariously unique pov mentioned by Bearian. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:48, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl car

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 14 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources really do not follow WP:RS, while the trivial coverage is very trivial and non-neutral. Cinder painter (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, also WP:BIO. Feels like UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I might be open to reconsider if it is rewritten to contain just neutral, supported statements, although I don't know there would be much left. Currently it is filled with press-release material such as "...platforms that have empowered thousands through digital literacy". The references mostly fail to support the statements in the article (e.g. number 5 itedgenews contains only the following mention of him: "Co-founded by Charles Uche Emembolu and Kelvin Chikezie, Dexude’s mission is...").--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable. Sourcing is also not up to par. With the amount of OR, it looks like it was written by someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:24, 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. asilvering (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Object-Oriented Persistence

(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. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Computing. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also not seeing significant coverage. Could redirect to Object database as an alternative. General concept of object persistence is clearly notable, but this specific implementation in perl is likely not notable enough for its own page. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl or delete. A concept proposed by 2 Perl module authors that did not seem to gain much traction beyond the obvious joke. MarioGom (talk) 19:29, 15 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding reliable, independent coverage that is not routine information about changes in business leadership or similar. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTFB. It's not even a well-written or impressive resume. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Not enough for a stand alone article. Reads like a resume. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:59, 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket boots

(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: [5] [6] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the references is a bylined article from The New York Times. The South African article is credited to Sapa/DPA, which I think means that Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable news agency, wrote the article and it was distributed in South Africa by South African Press Association, also reliable. I hoped to find the original DPA article by searching for Raketenstiefel, but only found uses of the term in the context of goblin rocket boots in World of Warcraft. Still, we have multiple in-depth references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 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. ✗plicit 03:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Card

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Technology, and Indonesia. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 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]

delete doesnt meet WP:NCORP, doesnt have any independent coverage and the article contains no real information and is mainly an ad for the company. --hroest 15:21, 7 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]

Delete. Can't find anything beyond the usual WP:SERIESA stuff. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 15 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

(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_creep^Talk 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Aviation, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 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:

Asteria Aerospace receives DGCA type certification for its A200-XT drone, Published/last edited 16 Jan 2023
Asteria Aerospace launches drone software platform SkyDeck, Published/last edited 23 Mar 2022
Asteria Aerospace Enhances Indian Army's Eyes

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_creep^Talk 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: [7] 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_creep^Talk 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]

Weak Keep i found references [8] and [9], which provide substantial coverage from reliable resources. AndySailz (talk) 10:27, 17 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_creep^Talk 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable based on current sources. Reads like a company promo. Don't think it meets WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:15, 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 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:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Australia. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging those who participated in the previous AFD/DRV: @Commander Keane, Spartaz, Robert McClenon, Deepfriedokra, OwenX, Asilvering, Alpha3031, DotesConks, MCE89, लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, GMH Melbourne, Darkm777, and Eluchil404:; apologies if I have missed anyone. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source analysis provided by Robert McClenon in the previous discussion shows that WP:NCORP has not been met. --Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. Using ProQuest via WP:TWL will show the fulltext of relevant newspaper articles. The sign up is instant and seamless, you need 6 months/500 edits/10 in last month for access I think. Try searching "Quintessential Equity". From memory, the oldest article from The Australian in 2013 is probably superior to any used thus far, including the fifteen suggested in the previous AfD. It would be great if editors could quote bits of NCORP or content policies in this discussion. I don't know how I would be able to understand the formation, investment strategies and development of those strategies of a company just by reading "routine coverage" in independent, reliable newspaper sources. Unfortunately I don't have any more time to devote to this process, but I would be wary of the analysis previously provided by Robert McClenon.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:26, 2 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]

Keep. My opinion that the company passes WP:NCORP hasn't changed since the previous AfD. And thanks to Commander Keane for their work on cleaning up the article. Linking the sources I presented in the previous AfD again for reference: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. And as Commander Keane notes, there are even more good sources from The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and others on Proquest. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 3 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?	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	– 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)	–	– 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)	I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND	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)	–	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)	The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.	–	– 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)		– 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		—
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)	–	Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan.
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)	Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND	–	–
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)	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)	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.	– 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)		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)	–	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.	–	– 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.	–	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)	–	– 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)	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)	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" [25] (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?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.	This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time	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	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.		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.	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.	Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence	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.	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.	Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view	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.	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]

Delete - voted last time as Delete. Nothing has changed. It doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are mainly announcements/Churnalism and not deep coverage about the company.Darkm777 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source analysis done by MCE89 which shows at least WP:THREE sources with significant coverage meeting the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 06:01, 13 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]

Keep There are many more news articles about Quintessential Equity. https://www.quintessential.com.au/news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.104.233 (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much independent coverage or establishing notability. Previous AFD result still applies. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:15, 17 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 my opinion of the conflicting source analyses above. FYI: The Australian Financial Review is well-respected and in the top 10 Australian newspapers in circulation and plays a similar role in Australia to The Economist or The Wall Street Journal. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "well-respected" newspaper goes to whether the publisher is a reliable source. We're assuming all of the sources being discussed are reliable, what we're now looking at is whether the content of the article contains in-depth "independent content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 19 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 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]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 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]

Delete per nom. These keep votes are from new users where there's obviously some offsite discussion to bring users here. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 28 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 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 [26], [27], 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]

Comment - I've added 4 refs from Google Scholar. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - lots of refs using Google.com.au.^link --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 15 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]

Comment: Hi @A. B., I've coincidentally stumbled across the same sources you added as part of my !vote review. The rub here is that all the authors, including Peter Thoreau, Michael Smart, and Dawid Preller from the University of Queensland, and Adriaan Schutte from Heliaq Advanced Engineering, are directly affiliated with the institutions that developed the ALV concept. Since the ALV was created by Heliaq Advanced Engineering and the University of Queensland, I’ve classified these as primary sources. That said, if I’ve been too strict with my interpretation of secondary sources, I’m more than happy to revisit the sourcing question again. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I’ve been convinced this just had to be notable; something about rockets and space just begs press coverage but where was it on Google News?? Then I thought to check http://www.google.com.au -sure enough, there were news articles. It was late last night and I’m busy today; I may or may not get to it. Thanks for looking at this, HerBauhaus. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being accused of "ref-bombing", I have added 7 news articles including Australian Financial Review, the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Royal Aeronautical Society and Aviation Week & Space Technology (the global aerospace and aviation industry magazine) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 19 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 ([28]), 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.