Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolphitech AS

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. I found the source analysis persuasive and there was no rebuttal to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphitech AS

[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 to meet WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE turns up only a few press release style articles, can't find any significant, independent coverage. Most sources in article are directory-style routine coverage or press releases. Article is somewhat promotional, as well. Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Norway. Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I noted your kind feedback and have already added a number of book citations in order to present a wider selection or sources. I tried my best to limit any type of 'promotional' style, but would warmly welcome your guidance or direct edits to improve or remove any inappropriate content. Szchanghong (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book source that you added appears to be an academic article that was written by a Dolpitech staff member, but doesn't directly discuss the company. I also removed an internal sharepoint link that wasn't accessible to the public from the article. I'd encourage you to review this for the kind of coverage that I would like to see for a corporation. Bestagon ⬡ 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I will work harder to identify significant, reliable and secondary sources. The link you provided is very clear. Szchanghong (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is kept, it should be moved to Dolphitech per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP. Wikishovel (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! In the hopes that the edits are accepted, I have moved the current content over to the page Dolphitech. Please advise if there is anything else I can / need to do to keep things in line, and thank you for the kind guidance once again! Szchanghong (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I messed it up - please kindly assist in the speedy deletion of the page I created and I can use the proper MOVE option 9which I am now researching) with my apologies. Szchanghong (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move articles that are in the process of an AFD discussion. It messes up the tool that closes the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - thank you for checking on my work! Szchanghong (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References must meet the standard of WP:ORGCRIT. Outside of some industry publications, there is nothing that meets that standard. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep vote in here. A lot of editing has occurred since its nomination and I want to be sure the changes have been assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, Liz. I took a look at the edits made since the AfD started and still do not see anything that would qualify under WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the sort of subject that Wikipedia should have more coverage on, although the article probably needs some clean up. Nothing exemplary but has coverage such as this article https://ffi-publikasjoner.archive.knowledgearc.net//handle/20.500.12242/1162 on the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment website and mentions in a number of scientific reports. They appear to be doing interesting work in the field of nondestructive testing. Yes, rather niche and uninteresting to most people, but important nonetheless. - Indefensible (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That reference does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out the ones that do? There is not guideline to keep a page just because "Wikipedia should have more coverage of it." In order for that to happen, we need to have the sources that meet guidelines.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions and assessments here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Based on the request for more opinions and assessments, here is a more in-depth references assessment. As Dolphitech AS is a company, we must show it meets WP:NCORP by way of WP:ORGCRIT. The assessment is based on the guidelines under WP:SIRS. Most of this is churnalism based on press releases or company supplied information.

1. Business Weekly, routine announcement with information being supplied by the company. It is an announcement of it opening a new location. The wording is even promotional, which indicates churnalism of a press release – “Established in 2009 in Gjøvik, Norway, Dolphitech was formed from a desire to push the limits of non-destructive testing. Driven by a multi skilled R & D team of experts from academia and industry, the company is constantly exploring the capability and application of cutting-edge ultrasonics, bringing proven solutions to market that are easy to deploy and simple to operate.” – Also, this is churnalism (see assessment of reference #9 below).

2. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing via ScienceDirect, an academic paper which has a single mention of one of the company’s products. Nothing about the company itself so not significant coverage.

3. Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt, another academic paper. This one talks about comparison of two of the company’s DolphiCam and that they come from the company. Nothing in-depth about the company itself.

4. Windpower Engineering & Development, Churnalism. This is from a press release which can found (in whole, or “churnalized”) here and here.

5. Composites, more churnalism and not independent. In addition to being a routine announcement, the author of this piece is employed by the company which shows it was likely a press release or that they supplied all of the information for the publication.

6. Manualslib, this is a user manual for one of its products. I do not see how this could be used for notability.

7. Unable to access. This is a sharepoint document titled “THOR Release Notes” which indicates it is not independent.

8. Reinforced Plastics via ScienceDirect, another academic paper. This one states at the top “Jan Olav Endrerud of DolphiTech describes the development of such as system.” Not independent and the article itself is about its DolphiCam and not the company.

9. BINDT, more churnalism or a routine announcement for the company opening a location in the UK. Note that this is the exact same information as reference #1 above.

10. The Epi Centre, same churnalism as #1 and #9. Same information about a routine announcement, same date range, and information likely supplied as a press release or solely from the company.

11. Unternehmensregister, I will concede that I have no idea what this site is or what it is representing for the article. However, there is no content and not in English so I cannot navigate. On its face, I see nothing about the company.

12. CR.gov, a PDF with a listing of a bunch of companies, simply verifying the existence of this company. Nothing in-depth.

13. Dolphitech, this is the company’s “contact” page of its website. Not independent.

14. Book, a book excerpt which on its face appears to be significant. However, it does not talk about the company, just the project. In addition, the authors of the except have email address listed which are to the company (not independent and not significant about the company).

15. Book, another book but this is NOT about the company. I cannot even find where it talks about the product.

16. Indian Defence Review, More churnalism and routine announcement. Reads like a press release and is even marked being writing by “IDR News Network.”

For those who believe that the article on the company should be kept because of the product, that should never be the case. Notability is not inherent. If a product is notable, it should stand on its own. Same for the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2023 (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.