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

CGMagazine

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

Fails WP:NWEB. I'm not seeing other significant coverage apart from the news story about the site moving towns: [1]. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, Games, Technology, and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sigcov in itself. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appinventiv Technologies

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

Google News results outside of the company's own blog posts are all your usual WP:SERIESA type content, some mentions in ProQuest but nothing substantial. All indications are that it is currently WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this company. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references used in this article are weak to satisfy notability guidelines of a company. This can be kept if significant coverage is provided. CresiaBilli (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability also don't have any significant media Coverage.Almandavi (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Ballot Group

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

Bit of a tricky one I think, given that it gets mentioned all the time, e.g., for their failed Georgia bid and it's considered a major vendor in the industry (see Axios, Engadget), but most of the more in-depth sources are the sort of WP:TRADESy sources that we would not typically consider to meet WP:ORGCRIT, for example InformationWeek / Dark Reading and Xconomy.

There are a couple of scholarly sources mentioning the company also, for example, Bernhard et al. (2019) and his later PhD thesis, Bernhard (2020), but I don't think it quite meets the criteria for depth of coverage. The best news source I found would probably be Washington Monthly, but again I don't think it quite meets the "directly and in-detail" threshold that we would need to write an article from it.

It would be a bit of a shame to have absolutely nothing on the company, but there are a few places where it is mentioned, so I figure I'd propose it as a redirect to Election audit § Ballot scans for 100% audits (given they're best known for their auditing software), or one of the other places where Numbersinstitute has added a mention. Any alternate proposals would also be appreciated! Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, Technology, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a redirect. kencf0618 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNICK

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks independent and reliable coverage. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (country). Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. Alldridge

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

Doing a Google search turned up more primary and sponsored sources, but it doesn't seem like there's sigcov for him or his companies and books. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Technology, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – [I've added two more citations to the page. I believe that with a bit more research, we can find additional reliable sources. Overall, the article looks good to me it's concise, non-promotional, and the information is supported by citations.] Black890 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The MSN article and the Deadlines are the same article under two different bylines and the MSN byline links to this page of someone who claims to be a travel writer. I suspect a company-prepared press release. I am going to declare those two unreliable on this basis. The TechyNews gives no "about" and nothing to use to evaluate its reliability, and it seems to be a "kitchen sink" web site. The Healthcare IT news is the sound file of an interview (not independent). His book is listed on Amazon as "Publisher: Self Publisher". Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesonet

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

Fails WP:NORG and lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no expert on the subject at all, I only made this redirect because the company bought a team from 777 Partners, but I believe this is notable. It's the company behind Nord VPN and has now bought the London Lions; it's the investment vehicle of tech billionaire Tomas Okmanas. Most of the corporate news would be in Lithuanian so we really must hear from Lithuanian users WP:BEFORE. This page has had problems before with being expanded into an article by users with obvious WP:COI but that doesn't negate notability. This sadly again seems to be the case with the expanding user using blatant promotional terms such as "in-house talent" instead of employees. Page needs cleanup and neutralisation, not deletion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. Some terms could be paraphrased differently, but at the same time, they might have simply been taken directly from the sources, and the creator may not have realized they sounded promotional. I think this page should be kept, as the company is well-known and frequently mentioned across various sources. Including such background information would be beneficial. Regarding the Lithuanian sources, I used a translator and conducted some research. In my opinion, they appear legitimate. I believe they were referenced because it is a Lithuanian company, so naturally, the majority of the sources come from there and are not always easily translatable.BandarSale7 (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on present citations such as Delfi, BBC, LRT and 15min.Hkkingg (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - clearly notable based on a search using Google’s Lithuanian site.^[2] —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May Mobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to fail WP:NORG and reads like an advertisement. - Amigao (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Garrett

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

There is only one example of WP:SIGCOV of this tech businessperson, this profile in the San Francisco Standard. The rest of the coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (e.g. [3], [4], [5]), affiliated sources (e.g. [6]) or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([7], [8]). He does not inherit notability from his mother's step-brother or grandfather. May well be notable someday but the sources don't support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Basketball, Technology, and Kansas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an unnecessary request, and feels like a personal attack. There are multiple articles on, or mentioning this famous venture capitalist investor and former basketball player. I found this page informative as I was listening to a podcast he was on and I came here to learn more about him. 217.110.185.242 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There are multiple WP:SIGCOV of this tech businessperson that I just added, from his past as a basketball player, as well as currently as a tech investor. See recently added citations such as this, this, this, this, and this. Happy to add more. ImagoDei137 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan Plus is a Q&A interview and thus a primary source. KUSports.com reported on him when he was a KU student and thus it's not an independent source. The YouTube links are also Q&A interviews, as is the Wichita Eagle piece. None of these sources is GNG-qualifying SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His mother also wrote about her son in her book. There’s also another article I researched about him that I will add. This seems like a waste of time and I agree with the other comment, something personal which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.https://www.cynthiagarrett.org/prodigaldaughter ImagoDei137 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mother cannot possibly be an independent source on her son, and independent sourcing is required for determining notability. I would ask that participants here refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS about personal attacks and actions not in the spirit of Wikipedia and stay focused on the subject's notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Kapoor (technologist)

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

Nowhere found any significant coverage to support her notability. Self Published ref. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG, self published source. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Technology, India, and Uttar Pradesh. AndySailz (talk) 11:11, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in social media

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

Non-notable and entirely unsuitable to be merged. Text has clearly been created with some form of LLM-assistance, and suffers from pervasive neutrality and sourcing issues. I started trying to attempt a cleanup but upon encountering a journal that was cited to page 22 when the journal itself was only 21 pages I knew it was unsalvageable. If an editor believes this to be a notable topic, then it will be easier to apply WP:TNT than to try and groom the current mess into a sourced and encyclopedic form. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cited any specific pages of any journal. please confirm your statement.

I wanted to express that I’m feeling quite frustrated today. I came back to editing Wikipedia after many years, hoping to contribute positively now that I have more time. However, my recent experience has left me feeling like the editing environment has become quite monopolized by a tight group of editors.

Instead of receiving support or constructive feedback, I feel that my article has been heavily targeted — with multiple edits and removals coming from what appear to be linked editors. Frankly, it feels like there’s a coordinated effort or bias to remove my contributions, rather than improve them collaboratively.

I would really appreciate more transparency and guidance, rather than feeling like I’m being dismissed or blocked without a fair chance to improve the article.

Please let me know if there’s a better process for addressing these concerns. WikiJuanBeltran (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't cited any specific pages of any journal. – Downsides of using an LLM to edit, you don't even know what gets included. See the very first revision of the page here, citation 4.

raw citation

{{Cite journal |last=Akhtar |first=Zarif Bin |date=2024-06-12 |title=Unveiling the evolution of generative AI (GAI): a comprehensive and investigative analysis toward LLM models (2021–2024) and beyond |url=https://jesit.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43067-024-00145-1 |journal=Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=22 |doi=10.1186/s43067-024-00145-1 |issn=2314-7172}}

"Instead of receiving support or constructive feedback" – [9][10][11][12]. Additional feedback from myself: stop using an LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly AI-driven editing (as is the article author's comment on this AFD), not worth cleaning up the factual errors and sourcing - the author clearly has no idea which sources are reliable and which aren't, even after being pointed to the relevant guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While considerable effort has gone into formatting the citations, the article itself is obviously an AI-generated persuasive essay, not a neutral encyclopedic summary of a noteworthy topic. NotBartEhrman (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT per nom. There are far too many problems here. Many of the sources I looked at didn't support the sentences they were attached to at all. Several of these sources predate the issues they are supposed to be documenting. Further, many of these sources are to pre-prints, corporate blogs, self-published essays, or opinions used for sweeping statements of fact. Tellingly, only one of the cited sources includes 'social media' in its title, and that source doesn't mention 'artificial intelligence' at all. The tone issues are pervasive. The only way to salvage this would be a complete rewrite from the ground up, and only a few of these sources would even be usable at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Every single reference is either primary and/or unreliable. The bot that tied this together ironically shows the limits of AI. FWIW, I'm on record as welcoming many new and returning editors. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates numerous Wikipedia policies. Would require a total rewrite to make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 2 June 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 23:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar Mishra

AfDs for this article:

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

This person is not notable enough to have his resume on Wikipedia; none of the sources serve to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably eligible for speedy G4 Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I would have speedied this if I had known it was a recreated article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:04, 29 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.

Lakshmi Narain College of Technology

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

There is little to no independent sources to establish notability. Also most of it reads like WP:PROMO Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Schools, Engineering, Technology, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In as much as there are multiple issues on this article, I suggest a clean up and proper citation, as an educational institution, Primary source could be considered, article needs clean up in content and references but let’s give this article a chance. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 21:57, 28 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!} 23:20, 3 June 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 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!} 02:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward (startup accelerator)

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

no reliable sources, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited in the article, full of hyperbolic puffery...one of the most clear-cut cases of WP:PROMO I've seen in a while. But as for sources, all I could find were this piece [13] and this one [14], both of which look like lightly-edited PR releases to me. Thus the article fails WP:NCORP. Note there is an unrelated FastForward project at Johns Hopkins, which is not connected with this company but has much more coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 28 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.

Rhonda Vetere

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable executive and author. Lots of PR pieces but very little secondary, independent coverage of substance. No notable executive roles or critical reception for her publications. Some impressive athletic feats, but they do not confer broader notability. Mooonswimmer 17:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Women, Finance, Health and fitness, Sport of athletics, Technology, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as my last comment in AfD two years ago it seems... many PR items, interviews, but nothing about this person specifically. [15], [16] for example. She's the "expert" on a subject, but nothing to back up that claim, other than what we're told in the same article. Too PROMO. Also, even less sourcing, with almost nothing new found since the last Afd in 2023 (same sources that were looked at in 2023 are also being repeated here). Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've been doing AfD for a long time now, 2023 doesn't feel that far away. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oaktree b. Thank you for your attention to my recent edit. To the best of my knowledge, the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that some of the language used may appear promotional, and I will make the necessary revisions to ensure the content aligns with Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines.

Could you please advise if there are any additional steps I can take to prevent the article from being deleted, beyond the revisions I have already mentioned? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to show sources that talk about the person, not simply things she's reported on, or stories with trivial mentions in passing of her. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Alright. I'll search for more sources. Thanks. Sergiomarcus (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mooonswimmer. Thank you for your attention to my recent edit. The subject appears to have significant online presence and notability, and I have incorporated only some of the several sources available on the internet that reference the subject. Among these, I believe outlets such as Fox News, Fox4KC, George Mason University (GMU), and CNBC are highly credible and provide sufficient coverage to support citations on Wikipedia.

Could you please advise whether these sources are considered reliable and substantial enough for the subject to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria and justify the article’s inclusion? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News, Fox4KC, and CNBC sources are all about advice she is giving, rather than articles profiling her life and accomplishments. The GMU source appears to be a self-bio, not independent of subject.

I do think the Greenwich Time source may qualify. NotBartEhrman (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Step Conference

AfDs for this article:

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

Annual event holds annual meetings. All refs are rather weak in WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Step, which has grown into a really rather prominent regional startup event, is now being held in Dubai, Riyadh, Istanbul and San Francisco. The article's patchy and poorly written, some of the sources verge on the promotional (I agree with the SIRS reservation) and because it's a startup event you'll be skirting WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE - BUT there's enough there for WP:GNG and more out there to add to the article if it can find someone to care for it and give it a good home. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, all of the names of attendees must be deleted. There are a lot of conferences out there that regularly have notable speakers and attendees but it's kind of embarrassing for them just to be name-dropped without appropriate context here. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 27 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 13:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola V975/V980

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

These cell phones both fail WP:NPRODUCT as they lack coverage in secondary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I have to strongly disagree there, have you even checked the articles properly? The Motorola V710 article already has secondary sources from known sources Gizmodo, CNET, Engadget, and even New York Times, including about a lawsuit against Verizon because of this product. That is certainly not a lack of coverage or lack of notability by any means.

Similarly, the Motorola Accompli 009 has decent coverage from Forbes and some others. The case for V975 may be a bit weaker but it's not too bad. Trust me I've come across many cell phones articles here that are not notable and have a serious lack of coverage (and I agree they shouldn't exist) but these three are not that, at all. Knoxmann (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knoxmann: yes, I did a WP:BEFORE search and looked at the sources in the article. Please assume good faith. Product reviews and stories about litigation are primary sources, not secondary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean for it to come off that way (that I suspect bad faith). Apologies for that. I still think getting these three deleted would be incredibly harsh - considering the amount of mobile phone articles I've seen here that only have 1 or 2 sources, very often phone models that aren't even notable enough for a media mention. Nevertheless to address your concern I have just added a university paper source to the V710 article that talks about the litigation. Knoxmann (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THESIS: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is taking things to the extreme. It is not right that articles like these are targeted for deletion when you have a plethora of examples like Motorola C390 filled around this site. I at least make good effort with my articles here that are notable to an extent and populate with media sources, I wouldn't ever publish one of barebones low quality as the example I gave. Having these 3 articles deleted could dissuade me from contributing at all. Knoxmann (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knoxmann: please do not personalize this dispute or threaten to quit editing to get your way. The articles were not targeted for deletion, nor is this nomination related to the quality of your writing or research abilities. I was looking at the articles while doing WP:NPP, thought they weren't notable, and nominated them for deletion so that other editors can express their views. That is the proper process for reaching consensus as to whether to keep or delete an article. I hope you continue to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks. Did not intend to make anything personal. Hoping there'll be a positive outcome regarding the nominations. Knoxmann (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a lack of secondary sources, they are all over both articles. Punkt64 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we get more participation. A source review would be very helpful to use to arbitrate between those who think seoondary sources are lacking and those who think these articles are sufficiently sourced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft MakeCode

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has some mentions but would be better as a merge into one of the many Microsoft product lists such as List of Microsoft software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but I think the subject does have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability on its own. I’m open to improving the article with better references if that helps. A merge could work, but I’d prefer to try building it up a bit first—worth a shot before removing it entirely. Vinizex94🌍 01:31, 24 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 06:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is my considered opinion that it would be advantageous to acknowledge that this matter originates from a highly informative publication concerning the BBC Micro:Bit. While I understand and appreciate the rationale underpinning your recommendation, I found the referenced material to be of notable interest, which subsequently granted me access to the associated open-source code. My engagement with this information led me to identify a project for which I now feel considerable enthusiasm. I am of the firm conviction that, notwithstanding the fact that this pertains solely to a single article of moderate popularity and/or utility, it would nevertheless be prudent to retain it within our purview. TechFan6456 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC) — TechFan6456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@TechFan6456: This looks like it was written using AI, and even if it wasn't, looks like WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't a valid rationale. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Research

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

non-notable company that apparently has a lot of money. everything is interviews or press releases. maybe too soon, maybe just never notable. but either way, it's not notable as it stands. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator); company has significant coverage in several articles in VentureBeat (WP:VENTUREBEAT) and Fortune, and therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The articles in VentureBeat particularly are far more than just press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Crypto is questionable at best but it's basically just a rehashed interview. Fortune is also pretty terrible for the same reasons and it's just a press release without saying as much. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that in reverse, Fortune is the interview, Venture Crypto is basically a PR/interview rehashed. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENTUREBEAT is listed as reliable at WP:RSP without exceptions. Has there been some discussion that they are unreliable on crypto news? The articles themselves are in-depth and technical, far more than just rehashed press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Computing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a propaganda piece for a company with no notable achievement that lives of social media hype. Their biggest achievement is a fine-tune of openweight models (Hermes) that barely improves the benchmark scores and has no community relevance outside of their social media circles. Sumosacerdote (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not Criteria for deletion. None of your reasons are valid Criteria per Wikipedia policy. If a company has enough news coverage they would qualify, whether or not they have notable achievements or not. Darkm777 (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you have an account only with 9 edits. I suggest you refrain from participating in AFD voting, until you are more familiar with the policies. The closing admins usually consider a voter's history, so your vote would not have much value. Darkm777 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, if I can express my opinion, I will. I don't care what you think about it.

Also, you're wrong. Coverage on VC media is not "enough coverage". At least it should not be. Or we are going to start a new page for every YCombinator startup now. In fact, this may be good since I could begin creating a lot of pages and accumulate a lot of edits for people like you to care, right? Sumosacerdote (talk) 04:18, 29 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 06:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three VentureBeat articles and one Fortune article establish notability. They are not press releases and I do not believe it is possible to buy articles in top publications like these.Darkm777 (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to buy. Venture Capital (VC) affiliated media will voluntarily[1] spam articles about any startup that gets funding. Do a Google search like "site:venturebeat.com raised" and see for yourself. They make announcements for companies raising as low as $2 million sometimes (on the lower-end of the spectrum for startup fundraising in US). And many of the companies featured there years ago are now extinct. A startup getting featured on VC media is not a good criteria for notoriety.

[1] I'm assuming some goodwill here, possibly not the case. Sumosacerdote (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Funding rounds (WP:CORPTRIV) are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

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

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, and Germany. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an EN Version of the German Wiki post that provides all sources. Boatschafter (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that, and most of the references cited there are either to UAV DACH's own website (i.e. not WP:INDEPENDENT of the source), or to registries or other places mentioning the group without providing in-depth significant coverage of the company, or at best some run-of-the-mill routine coverage about the group's elections. Java Hurricane 08:23, 19 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!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources cited in the English or German Wikipedia articles provide independent, significant coverage of this company. (The two Drones Magazine articles are close, but there is a disclaimer that the magazine is associated with the company, so...nah.) Toadspike [Talk] 08:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think the article creator is arguing for an unbolded Keep which means that this AFD is not eligible for a Soft Deletion and we need to hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The article has a heavily promotional tone and does not meat WP:GNG. There are no notable actions or activities of this group. The objectives are vague, nonspecific, and sound like corporate buzzwords. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete - a made up in one day awards for up and coming but run of the mill business person. We are a charity. not LinkedIn. Protect against re-creation yet again. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am wholly leaning keep on this. Queen's Young Leader Award and Future Awards Africa definitely meets ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ekezie is notable, he passes general Wikipedia guidelines, having received significant coverage from reliable sources and has won the Queen's Young Leader Award. He has also been recognized by Forbes 30 under 30 in the finance category. He is also the recipient of the The Future Awards Africa (2022), which is very notable in Africa. Send down the rain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notability has changed since I voted to delete in 2020. While Forbes 30 under 30 at this point is a junk measure of significance, we have profiles in the Independent Nigeria (2022?), Face2Face Africa (2022), Nigeria Tribune (2018), BBC (2019), and an article in The Nation about receipt of the Future Awards Africa (2022). That, + receipt of Queen's Young Leader Award satisfies me that GNG is met. I really don't think the high bar of ANYBIO is met by those two awards, but it doesn't need to be. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:33, 5 June 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 - [17] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [18] - and La Vanguardia - [19] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except the article is about the company so WP:PRODUCT doesn't apply. That said - if the article was changed to focus on the eSim service, those reviews would count towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 30 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]

Delete I can only find product reviews for the eSIMs. Sure it technically qualifies under WP:PRODUCT, but I could not find a single source that describes anything about the company or history of the product, so there isn't really any way to make an sourced article that is not an WP:PROMO. Jumpytoo Talk 08:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's definitely reviews about the eSIM to meet PRODUCT. Sure, maybe the article should be refactored to focus on that aspect, but the distinction seems, to me, somewhat pedantic and I don't think deletion is preferable to redirection here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:40, 5 June 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. ✗plicit 12:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete: An article on an IT services company (which appears to have been in a 2014 acquisition by Superstar Exports Private Ltd, so no feasible target). No evidence that their training portal or Embinux attained notability, not is notability inherited from training partnerships with larger firms. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 4 June 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.