Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxabl

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 04:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boxabl

[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)

At first glance it looks Ok, but when you look deeper almost all sources are bad or primary, such as interviews, articles with too many quotations, press releases and announcements, a few SEC filings and routine news about ELon Musk buying a unit Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator's assessment. Several citations primarily discuss Elon Musk’s alleged purchase of a unit, which he later denied on Twitter, making their accuracy questionable. The remaining sources include SEC filings, routine news coverage, announcement, press releases, etc. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very promotional in tone and likely UPE, but it is notable with references like these which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Needs stripped of the press releases, social media references, and churnalism if anyone is willing to perform the WP:HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with CNMall41 that is is promotional and likely UPE. A few references mentioned seem OK, but most references are passing mentions, press releases, churnalism. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Boxabl does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Most sources are press releases, SEC documents or small news without deep information. Many talk about Elon Musk, but WP:INHERITORG says this kind of celebrity link is not enough to be notable. The article looks promotional and COI problems. Pridemanty (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of citations used in this article do not meet WP:RS[1][2] and include references to the subject's own website, along with links to Elon Musk's X account.[3] desmay (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "number" are also WP:CORPDEPTH which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Please tell me why the three sourced provided above in my !Keep vote would not meet those standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very strange that no one voting !Delete is able to refute the sources I provided. No comment on the voting history as of yet but would ask closing admin to look closely at the edit history of this AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Businessinsider is behind a paywall so I cannot confirm that is a good source. News Journal is mostly quotations and would be considered unreliable. SF Examiner is not too in-depth. However, even considering that 2 of these might be OK, we still need more than 2 good sources to establish notability. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I've been consistent about HEY for the past few years: a person claiming that sources exist has to do the work to add them to the page. Between the November 2024 citation drive, and my current project assessing every Law-stub, I've rescued dozens of articles in the past five months. When a major claim of the article is refuted, fairly and honestly or not, then it needs more work than ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment about people not performing HEY. If you take a look at my work with Wikiproject Companies you will know I don't just make a claim unless it can be supported. I think I would partially agree about TNT, although AfD isn't cleanup. I stubified and sourced it, and a WP:BEFORE can be done to see the other references that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. On a normal day I would have recommended G11 but the voting in this AfD prior to yours raised my eyebrows. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 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.