Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DGWHyperloop

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Consensus for delete. Arguments for keep have provided sources, but the consensus is that these do not provide significant coverage. A review of the provided sources seems to confirm that the company is mentioned in a trivial way, if at all. TigerShark (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGWHyperloop

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Coverage presented is not indepth/independent/extensive. Half the sources are generic hype about hyperloop in India and elsewhere from the past five years, others are company generated (interviews etc). There is not one shred of notability here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote this article. Primary reasons were the fact that the company was first from Asia to be laying down the foundation of a Hyperloop as highlighted by Asia Times [1]. Also came across a number of articles mainly between 2017-18 detailing the company's proposed corridor project by notable sources including The Financial Times [2], Business Insider [3], Zee Business [4], The Hindu [5], Firstpost [6], an IOTS interview by The Tribune [7]. On revisiting the sources today, also came across a few notable, non-English, news sources such as Jagran Prakashan Limited [8][9]. Full articles on Outlooker and YourStory. Furthermore in Wissenschaftsrat's 2020 Hyperloop Report [10], NASSCOM's 2017 Startup Report [11], further features & mentions in thesis and researches.[12][13][14][15][16]. There's enough coverage by reliable sources for both WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth discussion of the company that gets to the level of WP:NCORP. It's all passing mentions and routine announcements. The second ref in the article, which is allegedly verifying the mere existence of the company, does not even mention it – that source is talking about the Virgin hyperloop, not about DGW. If the line is ever built (and there is no sign that anything is going to happen any time soon) then the line might be a notable transportation system deserving an article, but that does not mean that this company ever will be. SpinningSpark 15:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spinningspark's arguments; the sources don't actually talk about DGW in-depth or even at all, and are more about hyperloops in general. In the article, source 1 has a one-paragraph description; source 8 has nothing I can see. Applying common sense I'd also note that companies on hyperloops are going to be subject to the same relentless coverage as cryptocurrencies and similar fads, so I'd expect much more coverage than this to qualify for an article. Ovinus (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specific sources can be changed or removed. However, the company finds its mentions and coverage in multiple sources including a book, papers and of news outlets (WP:NEWSORG). As for its mentions coming through what is being defined as "generic" hyperloop articles. I'd like to point out that there is no working system based on this technology today, so barring controversies, any such companies CIP Arrivo, TransPod, Hyperloop TT, pass notability only because they worked on this technology. Confirmations from publications like Asia Times [1] that this was the first company in Asia to be working on the project sets it apart from cryptocurrency projects or companies. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several news sources that have provided more than just non-trivial coverage to the company,[17][18][19] and even from a book by a reliable publisher.[20] Subject meets WP:GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup, and it lacks independent sources that establish the company's notability. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --Mestrossino (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is about a weak WP:NPOV or an attempt of WP:PROMOTION, I believe a Template:Promotional tone should be a good start. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources by Azuredivay verifies the subject is notable and meets GNG. I don't see any clear evidence of "promotional writeup". The article is a small stub it can remain like this. Editorkamran (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2022 (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.