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

Agile Networks

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP, no suitable sources found during BEFORE Meadowlark (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. Meadowlark (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agile Networks... I've seen worse. Way worse. Whoever wrote the article did a good job to adapt the text to a professional standard of language. But Agile Networks fails WP:NCORP as suggested by the proponent, mainly through its sources. Wikipedia "bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product". All of the sources I examined were either press releases or promotional ads from the company. The Fingal County Enterprise Board seems to tell a believable story of an acquisition from one company to another in Ireland and how six job categories were saved at the time. Anyone can file for an article revival should the company meet WP:NCORP in the future. User:Deathnotekll2

Jackery

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

Redirect to Jacquerie contested, so here we are. Non-notable US power company, undersourced to primary sources, Forbes Sites, LinkedIn and the usual low level corporate desperation sources. Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. Would accept redirect per consensus but note it's not a perfect target so, failing that, deletion would be appropriate. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are multiple reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the company, such as TechCrunch, and RetailBanker. These demonstrate enduring notability per WP:GNG. Kyunde (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase? Just wondering... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equational prover

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

I found one independent source (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html), but no others. EQP is already mentioned on Robbins algebra and William McCune and the NYT source can be added to those pages. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Technology, and Computing. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have been referenced by number of other authors in addition to the NYT article. Kspiers (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RadioTux

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. I'm not seeing significant coverage available in the article or during a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Technology, and Internet. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article relies on outdated, trivial mentions with no significant independent coverage showing lasting notability. Essentially a defunct niche podcast with no reliable sourcing or encyclopedic value. AllyJams (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)*[reply]

Shobon no Action

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

Amazed that I had never came across this article before. Cat Mario was a short-lived trend when I was younger. The sources for this article are thin on the ground, ref 5 possibly not even existing. The gameplay section, being the longest, really does need to be sourced, and at the moment it doesn't have any. Despite my enjoyment of this game, it isn't notable enough for a standalone article. I wouldn't oppose a merge to the list of unofficial Mario media. Failing this, deletion is probably in order here. 11WB (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, Computing, and Japan. 11WB (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is an old game, sources are more likely to be in gaming magazines than anywhere online. I found this Edge magazine article and this excerpt from a book by Ian Bogost which together with the sources currently in the article, make it pass GNG. I will note that Syobon Action appears to be WP:COMMONNAME, even if incorrect, the current title seems to be a WP:OR/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attempt to set the record straight and may need to be changed back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't specifically for Cat Mario? 11WB (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note on the sources you provided. The Edge magazine is a "Game of the Month" short piece. Bogost's chapter is definitely the stronger of the two sources. Both would be good additions. 11WB (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that Cat Mario, Syobon Action and Shobon no Action are the same game. The triple naming is also mentioned in this book: [1] (though there is a chance it may be citogenesis). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources on Google under a search for "Cat Mario" specifically. Will check the other names too. 11WB (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest revision of the page made reference to this video from 2007 which had "Cat Mario" in the title, so no citogenesis. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A minor article about a minor topic. Notable enough for a short article. I see that it has articles in several other languages. Maybe some of those have additional sources? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Russian Wikipedia, ru:Syobon Action is a good article or at least their equivalent to it. Besides some fairly bad sources (Know Your Meme, WhatCulture, Screen Rant) I could find these sources: passing mention in a book on game design, some discussion in a book there is no preview for, and a review on ferra.ru. The rest of the references are already in this English article. In Spanish, there is this somewhat detailed Zona Red article that calls it "gato bros" and a discussion about it on Univision.com. -- Recon rabbit 20:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG and is sufficiently well documented to not warrant a delete. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Key Tronic

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

I don't think WP:NCORP is substantiated here. Company appears to be an entirely ordinary keyboard manufacturer, with references consisting entirely of what seems to me to be WP:CORPTRIV covering the company's contracts etc. There's also a whiff of a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone including a suspected COI editor. Maybe the company's contracts to produce Microsoft's keyboards could be argued as notability but that's about the best I can come up with. Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and Computing. Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keytronic made a lot of keyboards back in the day. Even some notable models - and individually notable keyboard models are a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 4,8,9, and 13 seem sufficiently independent and non-trivial. Coverage is a mix of business and product coverage, national and not just regional. I see no SURMOUNTABLE problem here. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the significant coverage pointed out above, reference 4 is a three-page comprehensive overview of the company's history in a book published by a reputable publisher (Gale). DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article might benefit from some clean up. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corcym

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

This article was declined at Draft:Corcym and then copy-pasted into mainspace by the author. This is a relatively small medical device company and I don't think any of the coverage here rises to the level of NCORP. The article appears to be more of a covert advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Italy, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO, with only scattered mentions in PR items [ https://www.leadersleague.com/en/news/andrea-mandelli-corcym-a-general-counsel-is-not-just-a-legal-advisor-but-a-strategic-partner-to-the-business]. The two and three are mentions of the company, not articles about it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I rewrote this article from scratch and removed all promotional language, peacock terms, and marketing-style content. YWI YentelWissink (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I reworked it. It is now based on multiple, high-quality, independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage, including: Peer-reviewed publications,In-depth industry journals (MedTech Dive, Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiology)and reliable corporate data. Is there anything else I have to adjust? YWI YentelWissink (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tips from the Top Floor

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not pass WP:N or WP:WEB. The last AfD cited a book that barely mentioned the show. The currently cited source is just a short blurb. I wouldn't consider the award enough to pass. Doing a BEFORE I'm not seeing any other reliable in-depth sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Photography, Entertainment, Products, and Technology. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

17:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Log 9 Materials

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. subject is a prominent Indian business. Sources include:

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]

Telefónica Argentina

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Argentina. 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]

Keep Deal hasn't been completed so the company still exists as-is, thus the nom's argument of the company's disestablishment is null and void at this time. Nathannah • 📮 17:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources added by Sir Banking. Svartner (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12Go

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Technology, Transportation, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the sources, in my opinion, The Pioneer (India) and FPJ are not PR. Favorable description is not always advertising. Source 6 opens perfectly via the archive link. So, the company occupies a fairly prominent position in the region and receives just enough media coverage. OmicronLib (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common for Indian media sources to launder PR as legitimate news coverage, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The FPJ source states at the bottom Disclaimer: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team. It is not a staff-published article. In addition, the Pioneer source does not have a byline, suggesting that it is PR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article has existed for several years in other language sections of WP. There are many sources there. I checked some of them with machine translation and they look good.

[2][3][4] OmicronLib (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't matter whether the same article exists in other languages; the English Wikipedia tends to have stricter standards than other languages. I didn't see any clearly independent, non-routine sources in a spotcheck of those articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant thing to 'see' is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ, which says:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?

No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.

Bylines are not required, and if you've looked through an ordinary daily newspaper (on paper) and noticed how few of the articles have bylines (especially short ones), you might not think they are good indicators of PR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Omnicron. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per at least these two sources: [5] [6]. These sites are used hundreds of times in Wikipedia. Brosticate (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technode source doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND since it almost entirely relies on what the company has to say about itself: it mainly talks about the company's ambitions and future plans, as well as quotes from the founder. ~~Seat61 is an unreliable self-published blog.~~

It does not matter how many times editors have added a source to Wikipedia, that does not mean that the source is reliable. There are thousands of citations to Google searches in Wikipedia articles, even though Google is clearly not a reliable source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Correction: Seat61 is a well-respected blog, but it is still only a single source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wait a minute, Seat61 is not an independent source since it has an affiliate commission scheme with 12go. We're back to having zero sources that count towards WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources to establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of the above; you can add a tag to the article if you'd like, but it seems to be an important enough company that we could fix the article instead of deleting it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant SNG is WP:NCORP and so we need multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS with WP:CORPDEPTH. That is to say we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources that provide deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The existence of pages on other Wiki projects will certainly not do. We have a source analysis above of all the other sources, and this analysis is correct. We need to bear WP:NEWSORGINDIA in mind. We do not have a single source that meets WP:SIRS, and votes that merely state that sources exist without showing why these meet WP:SIRS should be WP:DISCARDed. For those who no doubt wish to disagree with me, what sources do you think meet WP:SIRS? If there are none, this page should be deleted (again). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TTG Asia focused on the company i.e., non-trivial reporting - so not what we typically consider under WP:ROUTINE.
I also found additional En-language coverage:
Skift https://skift.com/2022/10/05/airasia-superapp-boosts-ground-transport-options-with-bookaway-deal/
e27 https://e27.co/this-startup-lets-you-buy-bus-tickets-from-your-laptop-20140620/
and non-En editorial sources to add:
PassportNews https://passportnews.co.il/article/184890
TourMaG https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html
Per WP:BIAS, WP:CSB and WP:NONENG, Indian sources shouldn’t be discounted merely for their origin - especially for a company operating in India, with remaining standards WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
As for TechNode: I see no inherent problem with that outlet—this is precisely what journalism does, verify and synthesize primary materials and when it does so the result is a WP:SECONDARY source. LvivLark (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't filled in everything here, but it is clear these 4 new sources do not add anything that meets WP:SIRS. Have a read of WP:ORGDEPTH in particular to see what is required for companies. PR about the startup and company announcements will not do.

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?
https://skift.com/2022/10/05/airasia-superapp-boosts-ground-transport-options-with-bookaway-deal/	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.	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
https://e27.co/this-startup-lets-you-buy-bus-tickets-from-your-laptop-20140620/	This is a PR piece for the startup.
https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html			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.
https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html			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]

Delete: The article’s sources are mostly press releases, routine announcements and content recycled from them. None of them are independent and the sources in the AfD are of similar quality. All of them fail the WP:SIRS check Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 6 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LegalOn Technologies

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Japan. 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]

I think you might not understand the full meaning of "independent source". It needs to be an independent publisher, sure, but the article *content* also needs to be independent. Simply regurgitating PR and funding announcements is not "independent content". A good essay at WP:SERIESA on this too. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 23 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]

Delete: The only non-routine coverage is a listicle entry in the Financial Times, Most coverage is routine and/or non-independent coverage about fundraising, expansion, and product announcements. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Japanese sources from the comment above are quite solid, especially Nikkei and Logi Biz. NenadWeber (talk) 10:49, 24 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]

Keep. LegalOn Technologies meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG through multiple reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. Major English-language coverage includes:
- Financial Times
- Japan Times and Bloomberg – reports on SoftBank Vision Fund investment;
- TechCrunch, Forbes, and Law360 Pulse – detailed coverage of its Series E and OpenAI collaboration.

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]

Delete - Notability is not established. Lacks sufficient coverage. Kyunde (talk) 16:33, 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.