Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Devonian Wombat (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 29 October 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Garling.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Garling

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

This technology and music journalist seems to fail WP:GNG, the only sources I could find were all written by him, there doesn't seem to be anything about him written by a reliable secondary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil NZ: I would oppose that. For one, he has been a prolific journalist with the San Francisco Chronicle (probably wrote more for them than Wired; and was with SFC after he left Wired) and has also contributed to The Atlantic and NPR among other outlets. I wouldn't say he is clearly associated with a single publication.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Thanks for that; you wouldn't even know that he left Wired (or wrote for SFC) from the state of this article, but I see now that there's been nothing on his author page there since 2015, and his LinkedIn says he's "Freelance". In that case I'd support a Delete. Nil🥝 03:23, 30 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

View Media Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. To satisfy WP:NCORP, a company needs in-depth coverage in multiple sources that is not entirely based on press releases, company announcements, executive interviews, or whatever else the company has to say about itself.

There are zero sources here with in-depth coverage; all of them are routine coverage and/or churnalism of fundraising, investments, acquisitions, and product launches. A WP:BEFORE search did not find better sources. As an WP:ATD, this can potentially be selectively merged to co-founder Alex Waislitz.

UPDATE: A better solution would be to create an article about Antony Catalano and redirect View Media to that article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source assessment table for the article's current sources plus one other source I found, which is slightly better than any of the other sources. Looking more closely, the only potentially useful sources mainly cover View in the context of Catalano's broader plans, so the best outcome seems to be to create an article for Antony Catalano and merge into there.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Unable to access full content but almost certainly churnalism of this press release ✘ No
~ Yes ~ Coverage of a planned acquisition that was released before an official announcement. There is roughly two sentences of non-routine coverage: View Media Group is consolidating its investment in the portal – which looks a lot like Catalano’s former business Domain and rival REA’s realestate.com.au – about seven months after scoring a $50 million-odd investment from ANZ.

... The venture aims to use Catalano’s regional publishing business, Australian Community Media, with Seven’s metropolitan and regional television network, as well as its West Australian newspaper, to expand the real estate venture.

~ Partial
No Press release, see [2] ✘ No
No The same press release ✘ No
No The same press release ✘ No
No Routine investment news ✘ No
No Press release ✘ No
No Churnalism of a press release ✘ No
No The same press release as above (can't access full content but first two paragraphs are identical) ✘ No
No Can't access full content but very likely to be churnalism of this press release ✘ No
No Can only access the first several paragraphs but appears to be routine investment news ✘ No
No Not really focused on View Media; only discusses it within the context of ANZ's investment ✘ No
No Routine investment news ✘ No
No Press release churnalism ✘ No
No No mention of View Media ✘ No
~ Yes ~ Very little coverage aside from routine investment and fundraising news and quotes from the co-founder. This piece has roughly two sentences of independent coverage: The raising for VMG is the latest development in a corporate adventure started by Catalano and his business partner, billionaire Alex Waislitz. As early as 2019, Catalano had plans to "attack" his former employer, Domain, by building a rival. ~ Partial
Yes Yes ~ This is the best source I could find. Apart from the routine investment news, it has three sentences that describe plans for growth and consolidation of View Media, but it also focuses on Catalano himself. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon I tried to look further and found the below sources. Are they good enough ?
https://www.afr.com/street-talk/catalano-and-waislitz-s-venture-set-to-buy-out-view-com-au-20230827-p5dzrk
https://www.mi-3.com.au/31-05-2024/anthony-catalanos-view-media-group-appoints-former-domain-talent-leadership-reshuffle
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7866793/acm-owners-join-seven-in-100m-digital-property-venture/
https://www.realestatebusiness.com.au/tech/24428-view-media-group-acquires-critical-piece-for-property-ecosystem
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/local-media-companies-inject-cash-into-catalano-s-new-real-estate-play-20220708-p5b08n.html
https://www.startupdaily.net/topic/funding/seven-backs-real-estate-media-baron-antony-catalano-in-100-million-proptech-play/
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/anthony-catalanos-digital-property-dream-with-view-media-group/news-story/e69804ff9c0564ae949036832933aae1
https://thewest.com.au/business/property/property-seekers-to-get-complete-view-of-property-market-with-antony-catalanos-new-view-portal-c-12030301
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/alex-waislitz-7247 Gudipudi (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, the best source here that I didn't already consider is the Sydney Morning Herald source, which was written before the company was even formed. We can probably have an article about Antony Catalano though, and include information about View in that article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The only other source i found was on Sydney morning Herald - https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/former-domain-execs-cash-in-property-startup-for-35-million-20221009-p5bocl.html.
Though AFR, Canberratimes, mi-3, The australian are reputable sources, i understand they are not to your satisfaction. Feel free to delete this entry as i cant produce any more sources. Thankyou . Gudipudi (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2024-06 ✗ R2 ← 2024-06 move to → Draft:View Media Group
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 November 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.

Log 9 Materials

Log 9 Materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:48, 5 November 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. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Futurex

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

I see nothing but press releases: not a notable outfit by our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any sourcing in that group that would pass WP:ORGCRIT. AWS is a paid platform and lacks independence. The Security Info Watch piece on Verifone is based entirely on a press release and interview without any independent analysis or critique. The first CIO source is better but not sufficiently in-depth to indicate notability. The second CIO link is a generic webpage. 4meter4 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also just for the record I am a a newbie to wiki editing! I do work for Futurex, and wanted to make some changes to bolster the page to make it compliant with the notability standards and to improve/update the information. Fxsbenne (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and updated the whole page, adding new sections such as their awards received and contributions to cryptography with CryptoHub and VirtuCrypt, as well as participation in reputable tech conferences RSAC and GITEX. I also added more pages their partners have created referencing Futurex's involvement with them. Fxsbenne (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apologies for being a newbie to this process, first AfD contribution. This page has been updated by the company to include 35+ SIGCOV links from external sources. I work for the company and would very much appreciate, and like to keep this improved version as Wikipedia is commonly searched by our customers and cited by search engines and Ai tools when people are searching for our company. We have significantly revised the content to be current, tried to avoid any over-promotional language, and cited capabilities, rankings, reviews, and awards from 3rd party articles and independent analysts. Please let us know if there are any corrections or revisions needed in order to be able to keep the page. MKrutikov (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primarily relies on and unreliable sources and lacks significant coverage from independent publications. The awards mentioned appear to be non-notable or promotional awards. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources added by @Fxsbenne are short mentions, press releases, press-driven coverage, links to standards, duplicates or near-duplicates, etc. This appears to be reference bombing with cites that don't count towards notability. If there is sufficient doubt to relist then I would encourage FXsbenne to give their WP:THREE top three cites that meet SIRS. Oblivy (talk) 01:42, 4 November 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 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of semiconductor industry occupations

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

Not clear why we would start lists of occupations per industry, or why we wouldn't then list the 274 (!) occupations from the one source[3]. Most of these occupations would be found in many other manufacturing environments, there doesn't seem to be value in repeating nearly similar lists of jobs across many such pages. Fram (talk) 12:46, 28 October 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 23:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher Sports Technology Group

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. There is one article from the Australian Financial Review, but other sources are from press release aggregators. I have not been able to locate other substantial coverage. Creator blocked for sockpuppetry and possible UPE. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:36, 27 October 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 merge to Darren Bailey#Personal life. This should have been closed as speedy keep under criterion 1 (no arguments made in favour of deletion). The D in AFD has not been changed to "discussion" like most other AFDs, and a proposal to merge where deletion is not under consideration should be made on the article talk page rather than here. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Ekalaka helicopter crash

2025 Ekalaka helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This accident seems to only have coverage due to the people who were on the helicopter. I am convinced at this time that the article will be a WP:PERMASTUB. The available sources discuss the family more than the accident itself. I think a merge to Darren Bailey#Personal life would suffice for this accident. 11WB (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/ntsb-report-links-helicopter-to-prior-safety-scare-before-montana-crash

https://montanafreepress.org/2025/10/24/montana-small-aircraft-crash-rate-among-highest-in-the-nation/

Zaptain United (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources talking about the crash besides the family dying in it Zaptain United (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more sources there are discussing the accident, the stronger the case for keeping the article. KTVQ is a local source, so is probably reliable. Montana Free Press as an investigative journalism source, I wouldn't question it personally. The MFP source is far stronger than the source from KTVQ, which seems to be lacking in substance. Regardless, both should be added. 11WB (talk) 01:57, 29 October 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajah Soliman Science and Technology High School

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

i believe this article is not notable. the most notable about this article is it is the "other" science high school beside Manila Science High School(it is first of country, that article is ok, but not this one). ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but notability on Wikipedia is not determined by comparison to another topic (for example, Manila Science High School). Each subject is evaluated on its own independent merits per the WP:GNG.
    Rajah Soliman Science and Technology High School is a government-established national science high school, formally recognized under Republic Act No. 8843. That demonstrates clear encyclopedic and institutional significance, even if the article currently lacks extensive independent coverage.
    The problem here is under-sourcing, not non-notability. The topic is real, verifiable, and educational in nature — it simply needs more references. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:ATD, moving this to '''Draft space''' for improvement would be a more constructive outcome than deletion. Additional reliable sources (e.g., from DepEd or local news) can likely be added with further research. Acrom12 (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Keep. The subject is a legitimate and verifiable public science high school in Manila, established and recognized by Republic Act No. 8843, which is a national law. As a government-founded science high school, the topic is inherently encyclopedic and comparable to other public secondary institutions with similar designations. While the article currently lacks sufficient independent secondary coverage to clearly satisfy WP:GNG, the presence of official legislation and verifiable existence under the Department of Education make this a real, notable topic in scope for Wikipedia. The issue is under-sourcing, not non-notability. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and alternatives to deletion, moving this to Draft space for improvement would be more constructive than deletion. Reliable local or educational sources could likely be added with further research. Deletion would erase potentially valid encyclopedic content on an existing institution.Acrom12 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to San Nicolas, Manila. It fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Being established via legislation, which is virtually true for all public schools in the Philippines, arent a reason to keep an article. A private school of the same scale and sourcing would be easily deleted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. We have four different outcomes proposed and have to narrow down that number.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 26 October 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 23:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use case survey

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

Pure WP:DICDEF without evidence that it passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 26 October 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.

Telefónica Argentina

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

No longer even a Telefonica subsidiary following its acquisition this year by Telecom Argentina, this company fails WP:GNG (even the Spanish article is undersourced) and NCORP. Was a redirect to Telefonica#Argentina, should now be a redirect to Telecom Argentina, failing which Deletion is the solution. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that the article is unsourced, but Telefónica de Argentina was pivotal to Menem's government privatizations of state-owned companies in the early 1990s in Argentina, when the Argentine government's shareholding of defunct ENTEL was sold to the Spanish company Telefónica.--Darius (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's true the article lacked sources, but that problem has been resolved. Not to mention that Telefónica was a major player in telecommunications in Argentina, I don't see the point in removing it.--Sir Banking (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:49, 2 November 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! 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZestyAI

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

Does not appear to be a notable company based on cited sources. Almost all sources are routine business announcements, obvious churnalism, or are tied to the company. The one possibly admissible source is this one: [4], but I know nothing about this website. A web search also found this piece: [5], which also looks like churnalism, and nothing else but routine announcements. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per NCORP. x2step (lets talk 💌) 07:32, 27 October 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 redirect to CNET Video. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Out Loud

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

Subject does not pass WP:N. The existing sources are all primary or blogs. I'm not finding any reliable sources in a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:31, 25 October 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! 20:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Media Server

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

This article on a company's video streaming software was created in 2012 (and rejected as a draft several times for various issues along the way). A dozen years later, it seems like most of the issues are still present. The page is essentially an advertisement for the product, with 90% of it being a list of supported protocols and a changelog. The sources listed do not provide in-depth coverage of Unreal Media Server, and do not support an argument for the subject's notability.

A WP:BEFORE brought up installation/developer guides, a listing on AWS Marketplace, and unrelated news about Unreal Engine, but no good sources on the topic. I believe this page fails general and web notability guidelines. Iiii I I I (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no substantial coverage of this product to make it meet notability standards. If the TechTV review cited still existed, it would be the only source contributing to WP:GNG; the other references from streamingmedia.com are passing mentions (two paragraphs in a list of companies, a quote from an engineer that works for Unreal that's unrelated to the company). I could not find any other sources that discuss the company aside from brief mention in a list of media servers (Australian PC User 2011). -- Reconrabbit 19:54, 3 November 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! 21:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Abu Sheikh

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

BLP on a young entrepreneur with no particular indication of notability. Sources are all passing mentions or promotional in nature. JTtheOG (talk) 18:34, 23 October 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KINO Tech

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

This company doesn't seem to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. 11WB (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Draftify – The article currently lacks sufficient in-depth, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. While Variety and IndieWire are reliable, their brief mentions focus on associated film releases rather than the company itself. As KINO Tech is a recent startup (2022), moving this to Draft space would allow time for further significant coverage to develop. SanneMonte (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As it fails NCORP, it should really be deleted, however draftify is acceptable. 11WB (talk) 01:33, 5 November 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 00:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cast AI

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are mostly routine fundraising news and product announcements, plus a few non-independent sources that entirely rely on interviews/statements from the company or its clients ([6], [7]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, techtimes.com is generally unreliable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 27 October 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.

12Go

AfDs for this article:
12Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Going through the sources: source 1 is a press release, source 2 is an obvious promo piece (just look at the author's other pieces), source 3 is a directory entry, source 4 and source 5/9 are routine coverage, source 6 leads to an error page and would be routine coverage anyways, source 7 is a press release, source 8 is another PR piece, source 10 is a "contributor" piece, not staff-written, and source 11 is the company itself. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes Unclear if this is off a press release, which would not be independent, but bylined Matthew Parsons. Giving it a pass on that basis Haven't checked, but it looks reliable. No All we have is 12Go offers instant seat confirmation with the 4,000 operators, covering 50,000 routes across 26 countries in Asia. which is well short of ORGDEPTH It's a news report amd WP:PRIMARYNEWS pertains, but is information about the subject secondary in a discursive primary source? It's moot since this does not meet ORGDEPTH
No This is a PR piece for the startup.
No All it says is Ron Hoffman'The VP of Product of the tourism giant Agoda, is moving to the Travelier Group and will serve as the Group's VP of Product (CPO) and CEO of its subsidiary 12GO. Not ORGDEPTH, that is a passing mention.
No all it has is It has, in fact, just signed a partnership with the Thai OTA 12Go Asia, which has been offering cheap travel to Southeast Asia for 3 years and has customer service in 9 languages. - that is well short of ORGDEPTH

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The four new sources don't support notability and neither do the sources in the article. Agree with Helpful Racoon's evaluation of the existing sources and the table. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "the company seems important" aren't convincing arguments to keep. Countglob (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The TTG articles are a pretty clear example of WP:CORPROUTINE as standard announcements, launch and partnership, the second blatantly based off a press kit given the reuse of quotes in other sources churning the same press kit. ROUTINE, which, additionally has nothing to do with focused on the company. I could find no better in the 173 results from ProQuest for 2008–2025. Given that the keep !voters have declined to explain why they have made the assertions they have, I can only conclude either a lack of clue on the relevant guidelines or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm a little mystified why one of the keep !voters bought up operating in India specifically when the company is headquartered in Singapore and primarily operates in Thailand. Yes, it also does so in other APAC countries, but India doesn't seem to be a major focus for them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Most cited sources are press releases, affiliate blogs, or trade mentions that do not show WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:SIRS... Publications like The Pioneer, Free Press Journal, CalBiz Journal, and Markets Insider are either syndicated PR or contain promotional content written from company material. TTG Asia and TechNode provide only brief, routine reporting rather than independent analysis..... Non-English sources listed in other language Wikipedias also give no significant coverage when translated. LexyNight (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LegalOn Technologies

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

This technology company nowhere to meet WP:ORGCRITE. Fails Notability guidelines of a company. Filmyy (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (COI): I’m affiliated with the subject but not paid to edit. Offering independent sources showing significant coverage:
• Financial Times feature (six companies pushing legal AI; reports 7,000+ users): https://www.ft.com/content/00ea7657-9f5c-45d5-9230-b6fc638d03e4
• The Japan Times and Bloomberg on the SoftBank Vision Fund Series D: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/06/24/business/corporate-business/softbank-legalforce/ ; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-23/softbank-vision-fund-s-4th-japan-investment-is-a-legal-tech-bet
• TechCrunch, Forbes, Law360 Pulse on the 2025 Series E and OpenAI collaboration: https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/24/softbank-backed-legalon-fuels-ai-for-in-house-legal-team-with-50m-series-e/ ; https://www.forbes.com/sites/zinnialee/2025/07/25/japans-legal-ai-startup-scores-50-million-round-led-by-goldman-sachs-partners-with-openai/ ; https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2367464/legalon-secures-50m-series-e-expands-openai-partnership
Other editors have improved neutrality and sourcing (see “edits since nomination”). Goldleafllc (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with HelpfulRaccoon's assessment of sources as routine. GNG only requires multiple examples of significant coverage and these already exist in English. However, some native language sources:
I am also seeing many more examples of Japanese coverage on the company's news page (they link to the publishers). I did not go through all 80 pages but likely to be more; in any case, there's plenty to pass GNG. @Goldleafllc - keep in mind we can use Japanese sources on English Wikipedia. DCsansei (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP, a strict version of WP:GNG. Under this guideline, coverage entirely based on company announcements, executive interviews, press releases, etc. is non-independent. A few of your sources describe an accusation of illegal conduct which cannot be used to establish notability under the guideline. Other than that, the sources you have shown here are either non-independent or not significant coverage. Also, please put replies at the bottom of the page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources being "quite solid" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability. Also, did you read those sources? Why do you believe they meet NCORP criteria? The Nikkei reference is a survey of customers using legal ai technology (and not just this company's tech) with no in-depth original content about this company. The Logi Biz article regurgitates a press briefing - says it in the first sentence. Where is the original content?? HighKing++ 14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that these are the same sources that are mentioned in Goldleafllc's comment above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis*** None of those sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. "Coverage" or mentions in well-known publications does not mean the company is notable.
  • Financial Times source profiles 6 companies but relies entirely on company information and quotes and is not in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
  • Japan Times source relies on the funding announcement, fails ORGIND
  • Bloomberg source is the same - you can even read the overlap between the two sources, also fails ORGIND
  • TechCrunch source, also relies on funding announcement and information from the company, no independent content, fails ORGIND
  • Forbes source, same as above. Fails for the same reason
  • Law360 Pulse source, same as the two above.
None of those sources meets GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 13:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We seem to be going round in circles. It has been pointed out that the sources do not contain sufficient in-depth "independent content" but none of the Keep !voters have engaged with that comment or pointed out why they disagree, and new !voters have merely repeated links to sources, again without elaboration. Can any of the Keep !voters kindly point to a specific paragraph in particular sources which they believe meets the criteria (that is, in-depth independent content about the topic company). HighKing++ 09:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.@HighKing: While I sympathize with your frustration we have a clear protocol for just this type of scenario which is WP:SIRS. Inevitably the burden of SIRS more often falls on those arguing to delete the article. If you want to break this cycle I suggest doing a table analysis. Otherwise, the conversation is likely to close as no consensus, which would be an acceptable outcome for those wanting to keep the article. There's very little incentive for keep voters to engage further, and as a reviewer I personally don't want to go through the headache of translating Japanese sources. I'm guessing that without a SIRS analysis you aren't going to get much further participation because of the volume of materials to evaluate and the language barrier. That leaves the WP:CONSENSUS here as inconclusive. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi 4meter4, your comment that "there is very little incentive for keep voters to engage further" presupposes any engagement at all. There is an onus on !voters to continue to engage when challenged and any challenge should be grounded in policy/guideline arguments. If there is no response to the challenge (either by the original !voter or by another), then the assumption is that the challenge was successful and the !vote should be discarded. I'll add that coming to AfD and !voting without further engagement would simply treat the AfD process as a drive-by !vote counting exercise. To date, at least here, I have challenged sources using arguments grounded in NCORP and there has been no engagement. I don't see how a table would help with the burden of translation either - my comments above are just as helpful as a table. On a separate but related note, I say that the usual "Source assess table" is often misinterpreted by editors who view the column "Independent" to mean that the test is simply that the publisher must be an independent corporation from the topic company. I created "NCORPcheck table" a while ago to explicitly highlight both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - the two reasons which lead to most sources failing GNG/NCORP. That said, I don't think a table is necessary for all circumstances and especially when there is no engagement from those !voters who have been challenged. Liz's comment (below) is the correct approach. HighKing++ 09:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Making a request that editors arguing to Keep this article engage with HighKing's comment about current sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If ２０１９年から本格的にサービスを提供し、約２０００社と契約している業界大手「リーガルフォース」（東京）は６月７日、「事業への影響はない」との談話を発表した。
    同社のサービスは、審査対象の契約書と事前に用意した類型別のチェックリストをＡＩが比較し、必要な要素が抜けていないか瞬時に確認する仕組みだ。自身も弁護士の角田望社長（３５）は「法律の専門的知識に基づいて法的見解を述べる過程はなく、回答の対象となったサービスとは前提が異なる」と説明。
    (i.e. Legal Force (Tokyo), a major industry player that began providing full-scale services in 2019 and has contracts with approximately 2,000 companies, released a statement on June 7th saying that "there will be no impact on our business."
    The company's service uses AI to compare the contract to be reviewed with a pre-prepared checklist for each type, instantly checking whether any necessary elements are missing. President Nozomi Tsunoda (35), himself a lawyer, explained, "There is no process of providing a legal opinion based on specialized legal knowledge, and the premise is different from that of the service that responded to the request."     From Yomiuri, DCsansei ref 1)
    is considered significant coverage, that which addresses the topic directly and in detail (a requirement in both the corp specific and general notability guidelines) then I will eat my hat. Don't have one right now, but I will find one. And eat it. Nikkei I admitedly was not able to rustle up a subscription for, Asahi arguably is worse, pretty much just the announcements, EnterpriseZine is just quotes, Logi-biz is the most CORPROUTINE ever "raises 71.4 billion yen" "strengthens cooperation" announcement, and Kabutan (via Yahoo) is about the same as 1 (except the paragraph appears to be more about the concept in general). I decline to provide my own writeup for the english language sources, but instead more or less endorse the one provided by HighKing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=1319453224"