Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laniakea Technologies

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Laniakea Technologies

This draft is sourced exclusively to paid promotional websites, press releases, and the like. It was repeatedly submitted without improving this issue, and now it has been resubmitted after rejection. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laniakea Technologies

Keep I respectfully oppose the deletion of Draft:Laniakea Technologies and advocate for its retention and improvement. While the draft has faced multiple rejections, its potential notability as a prominent app in Mexico, supported by reliable sources, warrants further development rather than deletion per WP:ATD.

Regional Notability in Mexico: Laniakea Technologies is described as a top app in Mexico with millions of users, indicating significant cultural and market impact in a country of over 130 million people. Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) recognizes regional prominence, and the draft’s focus on a widely used Mexican app aligns with this. The repeated rejections may reflect a lack of familiarity with Mexico’s digital ecosystem, as suggested by concerns about reviewer bias. Deletion risks perpetuating systemic bias against topics (WP:BIAS).

Reliable Sources: The draft cites credible sources, including:

Apple: App Store data or developer profiles can verify the app’s existence, rankings, or download statistics, providing objective evidence of notability (WP:RS).

Dun & Bradstreet: As a globally recognized business data provider, a D-U-N-S profile or financial data for Laniakea Technologies establishes its legitimacy and operational scope (WP:ORG).

TexasNewsMagazine

Online news outlet in Austin, Texas, covering local politics and culture since 2020. .

CaliforniasBulletin

Sacramento-based digital news site, launched 2021, focusing on California policy and tech. ~40,000 monthly views.

JournalPostToday

Remote U.S. news platform, started 2020, covering national affairs. ~60,000 monthly visitors

Sección Amarilla: A trusted Mexican business directory, akin to Yellow Pages, confirms local presence and relevance, particularly in Mexico’s market.

While the nomination cites reliance on “paid promotional websites” and “press releases,” these authoritative sources suggest the draft is not exclusively promotional. Inadequate sources can be removed or supplemented with independent coverage (e.g., Mexican tech news from El Universal or Reforma) rather than deleting the draft.

Potential for Improvement: The draft’s resubmission after rejection demonstrates the creator’s commitment to addressing issues. Wikipedia encourages editing over deletion when a topic has potential notability (WP:IMPERFECT). With editorial support, such as from Wikipedia:WikiProject Business or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico, the draft can meet Wikipedia’s standards by refining sources and emphasizing Laniakea’s verifiable impact.

I propose retaining the draft and allowing time for improvement, potentially with a mentor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Business or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico to guide sourcing and neutrality. Deletion would prematurely dismiss a topic with clear regional significance and verifiable references.

Bhcdjjdsh

(talk) 06:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more appreciated if you could put together a response without the aid of AI garbage. SK2242 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a strong probability that this wall of text argument has been created by use of a large language model 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions in wikipedia shall not be created by an LLM Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually twice resubmitted after rejection now. Delete as tendentiously resubmitted corpspam. SK2242 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tendentious resubmission is one of the criteria under which drafts are deleted by the MfD process. It has been rejected. It might be left to wither on the G13 vine, of course, but it might be kinder to delete it. This would allow the creating editor to start fro scratch without being tempted to reuse either references or verbiage. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I urge editors to stop spreading falsehoods and fallacies about ME and Draft:Laniakea Technologies and Draft:Valentina Ferragni. @SK2242: Your claims of “AI garbage” and “corpspam” are baseless ad hominem attacks, targeting my contributions rather than engaging with the draft’s merits. Labeling it “tendentiously resubmitted” misrepresents the creator’s efforts to improve a draft with reliable sources like Apple and app stores, Dun & Bradstreet, and Sección Amarilla, which demonstrate notability in Mexico’s app market. @Timtrent: Deletion for “tendentious resubmission” ignores WP:IMPERFECT, which favors improvement over deletion for potentially notable topics. The draft’s regional significance and verifiable references deserve refinement, not dismissal. Please address the draft’s content, not my persona. Best regards, Yours Truly, Bhcdjjdsh (talk) Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second !vote to keep. While you may offer multiple opinions you may only offer one fromal !vote. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a strong probability that this argument has been created by use of a large language model 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions in wikipedia shall not be created by an LLM Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Resubmitting a draft after it is rejected is not collaborative, and is tendentious. The topic may be notable. Deletion of the draft will not salt the title. The current draft is a dump at a dead end. The WP:IMPERFECT policy that the author cites refers to collaborative editing, and resubmission of a rejected draft is not collaborative. If the author wants to be collaborative, they can start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Bhcdjjdsh: If you are not a paid editor, stop acting like a paid editor. A paid editor has the excuse for battleground editing that they are paid if their article is accepted. There is no need for an unpaid editor to be combative. MFD is a content forum, but battleground editing often results in sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response - User:Robert McClenon : Wikipedia indeed is not a battleground, nor the drafts or contributions created in battleground editing. work on drafts like Valentina Ferragni and Space Exploration of Laniakea tech aligns with Wikipedia policies, using reliable sources (e.g., Apple, Google Play, Dun & Bradstreet, Seccion amarilla, CaliforniasBulletin, JournalPostToday, TexasNewsMagazine). These contributions do not promote hatred or ideological battles nor hold grudges. Request a thorough re-review of the drafts rather than a superficial judgment. Proper deep assessment and due diligence of the references and claims. Best regards, Yours Truly, User:Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Play is about the furthest possible thing from a reliable source. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really was not aware, Google play reference shall be removed though, thanks for the insight Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this is being discussed for deletion I have given it what I hope is a final rejection in the past few minutes. This has now become disruptive editing 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for update Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A further tendentious resubmission has just been rejected. Editor is well on the warnings trail for disruptive editing, and other matters. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone was still unsure, this recent edit is a known indicator of AI usage, as discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Messed up templates. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, numbers of AFC, could potentially be copied by somewhere else or inputed by some other source, that is an indicator of AI usage. Though as your user has more rank, I shall desist for resubmitting the article that you have rejected the last 4 times tendentiously . Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further tendentious resubmission. Further (and apparently pointless) rejection. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though as your user has more rank, I shall desist for resubmitting the article that you have rejected the last 4 times tendentiously in the last 24 hours . Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are fully in disruptive territory at this point. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 15:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed its disruptive, Laniakea is being resubmitted by hundreds, potentially thousands, maybe millions of users, specially the software is disruptive Best regards, Yours Truly. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laniakea tv is already notable. As a decentralized software ecosystem with traceable impact, growing adoption, and references across the internet—including Apple, one of the highest authority domains globally—deleting its draft undermines Wikipedia’s role as a living almanac of technological innovation. Laniakea software deserves preservation—not deletion—especially while credible references continue to surface. Let the draft stand and evolve, not be prematurely erased. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Meh, Weak Delete, Userfy , concerns have been noted, but they do not justify deletion at this stage. The draft is active, the editor has indicated they are still working on it, and even Wikipedia acknowledges that "editing what's already written is easier". This is not abandoned content; it's a live, evolving draft with potential notability and references from highest-authority domains like Apple.

Per NPOV policy, neutrality issues can be addressed through collaborative editing—not deletion. If neutrality remains a concern, the page can simply be userfied so the editor can continue refining it without disruption. Deletion is unnecessary and premature. Let it improve, not disappear. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Drafts should be assessed for notability through the AfC process, not MfD. There are no serious BLP violations here—cited content, even if imperfect, is part of a work-in-progress. This is clearly a draft, not a finished article, and the appropriate path is to allow the creator to refine it, not delete it prematurely. Let them work without unnecessary disruption. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: And block the creator for apparent AI spam. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The data about wikipedia norms, guidelines, and policies are available in wikipedia.org, your accusation is not provable. without facts, its pointless to comment, as complying without a roadmap of protocols is not feasible without a violation pinpoint. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete should be of this miscellany for deletion, its pointless as there are no no serious violations here—cited content, even if imperfect, is part of a work-in-progress.Drafts should be assessed for notability through the AfC process, not MfD. The only tangible fact here in this Miscellany is that Apple has the highest rank in verifiability and authority in the internet relative to this discussion Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author has been indefinitely blocked after resubmitting the draft four more times after rejections. Thank you, User:Bbb23. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can some admin close this as snow and dispose of this thing? Please do not salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor is not only combative and bludgeoning this discussion, they have been shown to be a sock puppeteer. I think it matters little whether there is a snow close (discounting their blandishments), or whether this runs to the end of its normal course. It may best monitored and ignored with the inevitable forthcoming deletion. Certainly no requirement to salt. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The repeated resubmissions is only causing disruption, no reason to let it continue if there are now socks involved. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the excessive submissions after rejection are wasting volunteer time. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:27, 22 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.