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

District heating of Kharkhorin

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

Too narrow a topic for a standalone article, not much significant coverage. I've already merged any relevant content into the Infrastructure section on the Kharkhorin article. Mooonswimmer 09:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notable and have meaningful information. Bleeng (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DankPods

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

I'm not seeing how this YouTuber meets notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NENTERTAINER. The sourcing is very weak, mostly to blogs or blog-like sources or to user-submitted content. The tone is promotional and the article contains quite a bit of non-encyclopedic trivia such as the name of their pet snake and their collection of Pokemon cards. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Technology, Internet, and Australia. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Do you consider The Verge to be a reliable sources? And as per WP policies primary sources can be used for citing basic facts.

I believe you misread the article, the article does not talk about his collection of Pokémon cards, it says how he makes Pokémon like cards for each of the cars he reviews

if you don’t like the part about his snake, delete it DankPedia (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DankPedia, do you have a relationship with DankPods? LibStar (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. DankPedia (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar name though. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created the DankPods article and your user name coincidentally is User:DankPedia??? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the logs, this was a renaming. I do not have any personal connection with DankPods, nor have I ever met the guy in person. DankPedia (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I sympathize with the nom, I took a BOLD edit to this and I think GNG is met. I removed some of the more PROMO content Czarking0 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep''' I agree. This article should be kept. It goes, while not in depth, into facts about dankpods that should be on wikipedia. Also, we can always edit this article to make it more suitable than it already is. IIEcolor (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, I did change the wording a bit, instead of saying he "attracted" 1.2 million followers I said he has 1.2 million subscribers

This will help with WP:NPOV, which I feel this article satisfies DankPedia (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Czarking0's edits satisfies NPOV and there are quite a few sources showing notability 174.193.137.171 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)— 174.193.137.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep - I'm going to say that the Sydney Morning Herald and The Verge sources barely push this over the line of notability. The other's I'm not convinced of their reliability or depth of coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 78.26. I agree that the SMH and The Verge sources are just enough to satisfy GNG. Both of them are reliable sources and the articles are pretty clearly independent SIGCOV. I'm not convinced by any of the others. MCE89 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiveLike VR

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

The article is overly promotional, and the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject. Almost all of the article's references are 404 pages, and upon a quick search, the subject does not seem to be notable per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Likely written entirely or partly using generative AI. Evidence: links are 404s despite the article being written today, access dates are all 2024-3-20 despite the article being written today, searching the source titles in quotes yields nothing, nothing is archived. Anerdw (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 don't exist at the links given. I find nothing else about this enterprise. Likely Hoax as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a PR item seems to confirm it existed [1], but the article as now sourced appears to be using made-up sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My guess is that the non-existent references are hallucinations by an LLM. Madeleine (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Research

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

non-notable company that apparently has a lot of money. everything is interviews or press releases. maybe too soon, maybe just never notable. but either way, it's not notable as it stands. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator); company has significant coverage in several articles in VentureBeat (WP:VENTUREBEAT) and Fortune, and therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The articles in VentureBeat particularly are far more than just press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Crypto is questionable at best but it's basically just a rehashed interview. Fortune is also pretty terrible for the same reasons and it's just a press release without saying as much. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that in reverse, Fortune is the interview, Venture Crypto is basically a PR/interview rehashed. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENTUREBEAT is listed as reliable at WP:RSP without exceptions. Has there been some discussion that they are unreliable on crypto news? The articles themselves are in-depth and technical, far more than just rehashed press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Computing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a propaganda piece for a company with no notable achievement that lives of social media hype. Their biggest achievement is a fine-tune of openweight models (Hermes) that barely improves the benchmark scores and has no community relevance outside of their social media circles. Sumosacerdote (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Turnbull

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Computing, and Software. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - very poorly written. TNT? I'm not !voting because he's a friend of a friend. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HaptX

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

Company not shown to meet notability requirements. Nearly all sources are WP:CORPTRIV about startup funding rounds in places like WP:CNET. The Perret & Vander Poorten (2018) article comes the closest to establishing notability; however, it's about the product and does not cover the company in any depth. Originally declined as an AfC draft for failing to meet WP:NCORP, but editor added two more sources since then (Soper (2021), a funding round notice in GeekWire, and Kelly (2022), which covers the company's new product and is in reliable source VentureBeat, but relies too heavily on company press releases and doesn't pass WP:SIRS) and moved to mainspace. Original author has since been blocked for disruptive editing, but this article is not CSD-G5 eligible. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Technology. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the company (or the product, frankly) in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of mentions and announcements but nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by new user who's now blocked for disruptive editing. Article did not pass WP:AFC yet creator still tried to bypass the process by moving the page.- Imcdc Contact 00:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin RIP

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

The sources already on this page are either to press release style pages or to the company home page. I had trouble trying to find anything about this because of its current and previous names being so common across the internet. It's been tagged for 15 years, might as well start a discussion on it now. Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article was created by a CoI editor. Moritoriko (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvell Software Solutions Israel

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its parent Marvell Technology per ATD and PRESERVE. Classroom example of excessive fragmentation. Thanks for nominating! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - Although it has since been deleted, the notability flag on the article was only placed on it on 17 May, a day before this AfD was initiated. It would be better for interested editors to be given time to improve the article first in response to the notability or other concerns, without imminent deletion hanging over the article. The notability flag should be restored, and if the article isn't improved in a meaningful amount of time, then the AfD can (and should) be reinitiated. Coining (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebot (microcontroller)

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

Notability. Seems to be just another (of very many) 'duino clones. No significant distinguishing features. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TrustRadius

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

Non-notable tech company. Page is promotional, created by account that I strongly suspect was paid. I can't find any RSs amongst the references, which all appear to me to be superficial, insincere or average brief coverage. Company is WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, Websites, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM is a correct assessment. All sources are trivial except the interview, which is not independent. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Saw this during new page review and didn't have time to a full BEFORE, but I agree with the nominator's assessment. No evidence of passing WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skystone Systems

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Canada. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References that I have identified fall under WP:CORPTRIV and mainly discuss cisco's acquisition in 1997. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SoftAtHome

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 23:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and France. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 23:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. All sources I am finding are routine announcements and mentions (along with Orange Group which could be a potential redirect target). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

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

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, and Germany. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an EN Version of the German Wiki post that provides all sources. Boatschafter (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that, and most of the references cited there are either to UAV DACH's own website (i.e. not WP:INDEPENDENT of the source), or to registries or other places mentioning the group without providing in-depth significant coverage of the company, or at best some run-of-the-mill routine coverage about the group's elections. Java Hurricane 08:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital signal processing and machine learning

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

Was declined numerous times at AfC, until the article's creator simply moved it into mainspace. This is more of a personal essay, not an article. As per [WP:NOTESSAY]]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System

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

The AN/MPN-14K is a modified AN/MPN-14 which is fully described in the article AN/MPN. There is a wikilink to the -14K article within the AN/MPN article which is wholly unnecessary since the -14K article does not meet general notability and the -14K article has no citations at all. I recommend the -14K article be deleted (merge unnecessary). — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahau (software)

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

Contested PROD. Not seeing any additional independent sources outside the two currently in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spinoff source checks all the boxes, but I don't think a 12-min podcast interview w/ founder satisfies GNG. I found a mention in a master's thesis, a mention in short article about hackathon, and a little writeup in an academic report of some kind, but the writeup is only sourced to the company website. I will say that searching for sources was quite difficult given Ahau seems to mean I/me in the Maori language - many unrelated hits to wade through - it's possible I missed something. If more sigcov in RS can't be located I think a great alternative would be to start an article about Indigenous data sovereignty w/ a section on Maori, as the overarching topic seems notable (lots of scholarship and reporting), I'm just not convinced this specific startup is. Zzz plant (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think the sources, especially the lengthy Spinoff article almost qualify the article for inclusion and "I want to believe" (WP:ILIKEIT). Nevertheless, I must respect our notability guidelines and I spent 15 minutes looking. Ping me if someone turns something up. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, requires more notability to justify inclusion. Every piece of software does not warrant its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. First, a couple of clarifications. The "podcast" linked as a source was originally broadcast on RNZ, the NZ public radio broadcaster (akin to BBC in the UK or NPR in the US), which is why it's on their website. This is not a business article about a "startup", it's a tech article about a pioneering open source project, created by and for indigenous people. I invite those proposing deletion to stop and consider the speedy deletion of "DEI" content on US public services websites, and check that implicit bias is playing no part is dismissing this topic as unworthy of a WP article. It's hard to find sources that meet WP standards because of precisely that bias, as well as international media bias against relatively small countries and population. Surely a mention in an academic thesis, combined with the Spinoff and RNZ links, make it worth leaving the article in place for now, with a "needs more sources" flag? DanylStrype — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no purpose to a 'need more sources tag' if more sources don't exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A RNZ podcast should probably count as a source with editorial oversight, just as blogs maintained by news media are normally exempt from our “no blogs” rule. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that the RNZ is a RS, and for what it's worth they do seem to describe it themselves as a podcast - although my understanding is that interviews (regardless of outlet) don't usually count towards GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of comparison, WP has an article on AntennaPod. A podcast-listening app, of which there are dozens on Android alone, many of them open source. Ahau is a unique P2P network software project, using a novel protocol (Secure Scuttlebutt) created by indigenous people to securely store, and selectively share, their genealogical memory. This isn't notable enough, despite local news media references, but one of many podcast apps is? Again, I'm tapping the implicit bias sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Sasada

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

This article about a programmer and academic has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three external links, but these don't help with notability (two interviews and a blog post with a translation of work by Sasada). I may be missing sources in Japanese, but with what I have found I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Heroku is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Technology, Computing, Japan, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPROF and I dont see enough in-depth coverage to justify notability as a Ruby developer per WP:GNG. --hroest 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie

AfDs for this article:

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

This entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star

AfDs for this article:

(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. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl car

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

Article fails notability guidelines and match original research; content may belong in a broader automotive marketing article or as part of a manufacturer's page. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article is short on examples and may need to be at a better title, one thing it is not short on is sourcing. This concept of cars that are associated with one gender or another of the purchaser is well-established as a legit topic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket boots

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

fails WP:GNG. The refs are copies of the same sensationalist article. I didnt find and native Russian sources, and English sources for the term are something else. --Altenmann >talk 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find russian sources: [2] [3] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the references is a bylined article from The New York Times. The South African article is credited to Sapa/DPA, which I think means that Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable news agency, wrote the article and it was distributed in South Africa by South African Press Association, also reliable. I hoped to find the original DPA article by searching for Raketenstiefel, but only found uses of the term in the context of goblin rocket boots in World of Warcraft. Still, we have multiple in-depth references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything in the English sources to support the use of the term "rocket boots". (And it's certainly incorrect from a technical perspective; based on the description, these boots are much more akin to piston engines than rockets.) The Times article avoids using any name for the boots at all, and the Dispatch article refers to them once each as "quickwalkers" and "fuel-powered superboots"; do the Russian sources give these contraptions any particular name? Omphalographer (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a real product and didn't have name, usually it was called "Сапоги-скороходы" - in quotes - the Russian counterpart of Seven-league boots. Actually, it was a good question. Now I noticed the bureaucratic name of a model of the device, "устройство механизации бега" ("device for the mechanization of running", "run mechanization device") and this Russian term gives more hits, mostly anecdotes, probably not original. --Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 22 closed with no consensus and I decided it was appropriate to relist. Procedural nomination, no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Australia. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging those who participated in the previous AFD/DRV: @Commander Keane, Spartaz, Robert McClenon, Deepfriedokra, OwenX, Asilvering, Alpha3031, DotesConks, MCE89, लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, GMH Melbourne, Darkm777, and Eluchil404:; apologies if I have missed anyone. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source analysis provided by Robert McClenon in the previous discussion shows that WP:NCORP has not been met. --Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. Using ProQuest via WP:TWL will show the fulltext of relevant newspaper articles. The sign up is instant and seamless, you need 6 months/500 edits/10 in last month for access I think. Try searching "Quintessential Equity". From memory, the oldest article from The Australian in 2013 is probably superior to any used thus far, including the fifteen suggested in the previous AfD. It would be great if editors could quote bits of NCORP or content policies in this discussion. I don't know how I would be able to understand the formation, investment strategies and development of those strategies of a company just by reading "routine coverage" in independent, reliable newspaper sources. Unfortunately I don't have any more time to devote to this process, but I would be wary of the analysis previously provided by Robert McClenon.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻 🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My opinion that the company passes WP:NCORP hasn't changed since the previous AfD. And thanks to Commander Keane for their work on cleaning up the article. Linking the sources I presented in the previous AfD again for reference: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. And as Commander Keane notes, there are even more good sources from The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and others on Proquest. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Commander Keane says: Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Satisfies GNG
1	Australian Financial Review	Paywalled report of purchase of a building	Yes	Probably	Yes	Probably	No. Fails verifiability.
2	www.smh.com.au	Discussion of recent activity by company	Yes	Yes, just barely	Yes	Yes	Yes
3	Australian Financial Review	Paywalled	Yes	Probably	Yes	Probably	No. Fails verifiability.

If the proponents can't find any non-paywalled sources, then respect for the core policy of verifiability should be to move this into draft space until the proponents can pass the Heymann test by finding viewable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:

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?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Lindsay, Nicole (14 March 2018). "Quintessential's opportunity fund ready to roll". The Sydney Morning Herald. (also in current article)	– I would say between 40 to 80 percent of the article is quotes from the company, but I am willing to tentatively accept it on ORGIND	– The bigger issue is that the non-quote content is heavily WP:ORGTRIV	– and I am not fully convinced that it demonstrates the author's own analysis or evaluation	—
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2476776820)	–	– Fairly similar to the above, maybe slightly better in terms of detail. If these are the best sources available, I would be inclined to exclude	–	—
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 3074029294) (also currently ref 3)	I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND	but it falls further from addressing the company itself directly or in-detail	– realistically, there is analysis here, and good analysis, but more about the (CBD office) real estate market than any of the companies
Lenaghan, Nick (22 September 2014). "Quintessential time to sell-five asset portfolio". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1748982798)	–	Less detailed than the other Lenaghan article, or the SMH. Not much to say.	–
Thomson, James (8 March 2024). "Meet the bravest investor in office property". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest has 3 different versions, 3063607564 is one)	The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.	–	– I would disagree this has meaningful independent analysis, but it's not significantly worse than the SMH. I would place it between that and the 2014 Lenaghan.	–	—
Wilmot, Ben (3 July 2024). "Quintessential agrees to pay $250m for Brisbane CBD tower". The Australian. (ProQuest 3074848171)		– Actually relatively good on the other criteria, but it's not clear to me we can say much about the company with the content therein		—
and I think I'll finish off my first round of reviews with ref 1 currently in the article, since the other two were already listed: Schlesinger, Larry (4 March 2015). "Quintessential Equity pays $32m for 360 Capital's Canberra building". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1747550524)	–	Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan.
For my second round or reviews, we'll start with the one Commander Keane noted as promising, which I believe would be: Brown, Greg (22 August 2013). "Shane Quinn won't yield on incentives". The Australian. (ProQuest 1426541389)	Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND	–	–
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)	Look, the main issue with these "We bought this, this is why this is a good deal for us" (other than the fact that they're mostly quotes)	is, of course they're going to make vague waves about how they're a good company doing good deals. No investment manager is going to go up to a news company and say "here's how we do a bad job with our clients' money".	– There's analysis here, but almost all of it is "invest in us, here is what we say our strategy is, it's very good", and it's from the company.
Lenaghan, Nick (17 March 2021). "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide's high-tech precinct". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2501830229)	– I think I would put this at around the Tauriello article.	– The last and 5th from last paragraphs are mostly what I'd look at. Though, I wonder if looking at all the (marginal) Lenaghan articles as a single source could be an option.	–	—
Lenaghan, Nick (18 June 2014). "Quintessential considers Canberra buys essential". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1749585511)		I would say this is less useful than the (other) 2014 and North Ryde articles by Lenaghan, and would not have useful content even if combined.	–
"Quintessential wins $120m WorkSafe building in Geelong". Australian Financial Review. 16 February 2016. (ProQuest 1765335569)	–	I don't think the middle bit is useful SIGCOV for this company, and the rest is ORGTRIV stuff.	–
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.	–	– Honestly I think this one might be the best one yet, either that or the Visy article by Lenaghan	–	—
Johanson, Simon (10 November 2015). "Cashed-up investors prompt funds managers to sell". The Sydney Morning Herald.	–	I would say this is something like the Schlesinger article, where there is not enough directly about the company, out of the independent secondary content.	–
Tauriello, Giuseppe (7 November 2023). "Quintessential secures third tenant for upgraded Telstra building". The Australian. (ProQuest 2887105309)	–	– Slightly worse than the other Tauriello article, and I don't think combining the two would help much even if we wanted to do that.	–	—
Wilmot, Ben (23 September 2014). "Quintessential in $90m sell-off". The Australian. (ProQuest 1563927930)	I was about to mark it as fully passing ORGIND until I realised Bishop was the person handling the sale (it did say that in the article, just missed it initially)	This is really the heart of ORGTRIV, where the only information in there is useful about that one specific transaction.	–

Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that took a bit more out of me than I expected (hence the long break as well), so I don't think I'll be looking for any more sources yet. But, overall, I don't think the available sources quite clear what we want to for WP:NCORP, though there are a few I might be convinced are valid, like the Visy article by Lenaghan or WorkSafe by Johanson. I'd be happier if the three best sources more clearly featured direct and in-depth information (better than either of those two) about the company that also meets the second half of ORGIND though, so at the moment I'm still leaning towards a delete, or back to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete based on the source analysis above and the fact that the article is basically devoid of useful information, except that company bought property X and sold it for Y dollars. --hroest 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are finely balanced on the keep/delete axis and I would rather not close as another no-consensus given the recent history. I would particularly like to hear from User:Commander Keane, User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, and User:MCE89, if they are willing, as to their views on the source analysis User:Alpha3031 has been kind enough to perform and whether they maintain their keep !votes in its light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed both source analysis and I agree with @MCE89's assessment below finding that those sources are sufficient for notability. I think the article should be kept as long as we don't go back to the COI/promotional version. 🄻 🄰 11:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.
- Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [19] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
- Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
- Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
- Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think ORGIND and NORG in general has been tightening in response to spam over the years, and there is an argument that we could have gone too far, but at the moment the balance is a considerably stricter standard than other topic areas which probably deletes some articles which are probably not too spammy but still probably lets a lot of spam through. Hard balance to strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.

I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.

The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.

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?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.	This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time	Tells us that Quintessential is considered a savvy buyer with a focus on quality assets, that it is looking for an exposure to the city which is expected to benefit from the 2032 Olympics, and that the boutique property house has been linked to a series of office deals amid a change in the investment cycle. It also distinguishes this potential deal from Quintessential's past purchase strategy, saying that its most recent purchase in Adelaide was a refurbishment and repositioning play while this Brisbane building is in the luxury market	Provides secondary analysis of what the potential deal says about the market and about Quintessential's strategy
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review.		I disagree that this one falls short of addressing Quintessential itself directly. It says that Quintessential is one of the few investor groups buying up CBD office towers, and that its thesis for doing so is based around securing them at or near the bottom of the market and in better performing markets such as Brisbane where vacancy rates are lower and A-Grade rents are still rising amid a flight to quality. It also says that it is able to do so because of its loyal investor base and that part of its motivation for its purchases is to improve its ESG credentials.	Strikes me as providing meaningful secondary analysis regarding the author's thesis for why Quintessential is one of the few investors buying CBD office towers
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.	Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence	Explains what is distinct about Quintessential's strategy - that it has stamped a presence in the office space by buying, regenerating and re-leasing older buildings in Canberra and NSW to government and other tenants - and provides an overview of its historical purchases and development pipeline.	This appears to be original, secondary analysis of the company's historical buying strategy and a brief overview of its pipeline
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review.	Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view	Places this particular lease in the context of the longer-term view the fund manager and syndicator is taking on the prospect of disruption in the industrial market, giving some analysis of what this disruption might look like, and explains that Quintessential’s strategy is to acquire and regenerate value-add and core-plus commercial office and industrial properties in CBD and city fringe markets.	This also strikes me as original, secondary analysis by the article's author, explaining how this particular deal connects to other purchases that Quintessential has made and that it "vindicates" Quintessential's original purchase of the asset.

MCE89 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89, all of those sources are based on company announcements. Sometimes it is obvious, such as when the article directly attributes the information as having originated from the company ("announced", "confirmed", etc). Also next time, might be worthwhile checking to see if the "story" is covered by another publication and carries the same information - if so, you'd have to agree that for something to contain "independent content" (as per ORGIND) then the article has to have something kinda unique. So this source isn't "independent" because, on the same day, this entirely "different" article has the exact same information. Similarly, this article mirrors the Sydney Morning Herald article. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just not true at all. The fact that two publications report on the same event doesn’t make them non-independent sources. If you read the sources that you claim “mirror” one another, you will see that they are distinct articles reporting on the same event. A newsworthy event like a major property acquisition is obviously often going to be reported on by multiple publications. And the fact that an article contains things like “the company confirmed” or “the company announced” does not make that source non-independent, as long as the source also contains independent analysis of the company’s announcement. For instance, think of all the stories that begin with “the Trump administration announced (some new policy)” and then provide analysis of that policy announcement - the fact that they are “based on” an announcement by the administration obviously doesn’t make them non-independent souces. And what about the first two sources in the above table, which are clearly not just regurgitating company announcements? MCE89 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once you remove the duplication that appears in both articles and the content which originated from company sources (which appears to include all the "facts and figures", a "feature" of all Quintessential announcements), what precisely is left? If you're pushing that what is left is an "independent analysis" you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company? I don't see any independent "analysis" of the announcement. As for the first source, did you even read it? Point out where I can find any in-depth independent content *about the company* - not rumour and gossip about a potential upcoming business deal or details about other property. The second article is about a property slump in Brisbane, using the topic company's announcement of price paid vs what was previously floated as a potential price to underpin the assertions, half of the article isn't even about the topic company. Here's an article published on the same day with the same facts and numbers about the deal. In my experience, when you get articles published on the same day covering the same event, they're rarely going to meet NCORP because they regurgitate the same information provided to them by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company. Did you not see the table you're replying to where I did exactly that? I pointed out the paragraphs and sentences that, in my view, provide significant independent analysis. For instance, the first source explains that Quintessential's previous deal in Adelaide was to refurbish a building, but it's been linked to a series of deals involving more upmarket office buildings amid a change in the investment cycle, and that this deal in particular would give it greater exposure to the Brisbane market ahead of the 2032 Olympics. I don't see how that could possibly fall into the category of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" or "brief or passing mentions". MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're probably at an impasse. You want to say that the first article is good - its mostly about rumours and gossip and most of the article talks about the Brisbane commercial property market in general. ORGTRIV also includes as examples, routine coverage of capital transactions. Most of the article deals with the Bris Nor does the article fit any of the descriptions of WP:SUBSTANTIAL, nor can you say it meets CORPDEPTH's definition: "[D]eep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". At most, you could say that there are a total of 6 sentences in that article which are about the company - that simply isn't sufficent to meet "deep or significant" requirement. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - voted last time as Delete. Nothing has changed. It doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are mainly announcements/Churnalism and not deep coverage about the company.Darkm777 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source analysis done by MCE89 which shows at least WP:THREE sources with significant coverage meeting the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey (u|DCsansei}}, there's been a lot of discussion ranging over many weeks involving the references listed by MCE89. I've pointed out why those sources fail GNG/NCORP. Your !vote is very vague and potentially meaningless since it doesn't attempt to engage in any discussion. Can you perhaps try to identify which sources meet NCORP/ORGIND by reference to particular paragraphs? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many more news articles about Quintessential Equity. https://www.quintessential.com.au/news/
Delete I don't see much independent coverage or establishing notability. Previous AFD result still applies. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my opinion of the conflicting source analyses above. FYI: The Australian Financial Review is well-respected and in the top 10 Australian newspapers in circulation and plays a similar role in Australia to The Economist or The Wall Street Journal. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "well-respected" newspaper goes to whether the publisher is a reliable source. We're assuming all of the sources being discussed are reliable, what we're now looking at is whether the content of the article contains in-depth "independent content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 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 no consensus‎. which does not preclude a merger which can be handled editorially. Consensus to delete is not going to emerge here, and we do not need a further relist Star Mississippi 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

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

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Draftify: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [20], [21], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. Given this, a merge into ~~Australian Space Agency~~ a broader topic would preserve this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE, or it could be draftified for further development and sourcing. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.

I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added 4 refs from Google Scholar. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - lots of refs using Google.com.au.^link --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @A. B., I've coincidentally stumbled across the same sources you added as part of my !vote review. The rub here is that all the authors, including Peter Thoreau, Michael Smart, and Dawid Preller from the University of Queensland, and Adriaan Schutte from Heliaq Advanced Engineering, are directly affiliated with the institutions that developed the ALV concept. Since the ALV was created by Heliaq Advanced Engineering and the University of Queensland, I’ve classified these as primary sources. That said, if I’ve been too strict with my interpretation of secondary sources, I’m more than happy to revisit the sourcing question again. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I’ve been convinced this just had to be notable; something about rockets and space just begs press coverage but where was it on Google News?? Then I thought to check http://www.google.com.au -sure enough, there were news articles. It was late last night and I’m busy today; I may or may not get to it. Thanks for looking at this, HerBauhaus. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being accused of "ref-bombing", I have added 7 news articles including Australian Financial Review, the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Royal Aeronautical Society and Aviation Week & Space Technology (the global aerospace and aviation industry magazine) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After checking through all of the references you've added, I still do not see evidence of significant or sustained independent coverage. Every source was published between 2014 and 2017, seemingly because the project stalled after that point, and even within that period of active development the coverage is scant. Preller and Smart's works barely mention the ALV, while the ABC and AFR articles mention it only in passing. Aerospace magazine gives a bit more detail, but its coverage is still extremely brief (and focused on SPARTAN, not the ALV). The iTnews article also provides no significant coverage of the ALV, mostly consists of quotes from individuals involved in the project about the potential of reusable launch vehicles. Ditto for the articles in the Register and New Atlas. None of these sources, besides the initial three (non-independent) sources already present in the article, provide coverage that could be considered significant. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources disagree on terminology. In some articles, the SPARTAN second stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "Austral Launch Vehicle" project. In others, the Austral Launch Vehicle first stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "SPARTAN" project.

What I know is that the overall 3-stage project is notable. Perhaps the answer is to rename this article to something else. I'm open to suggestions.

I'm also open to draftifying the article and I will work on it. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens.

It looks like a company formed in 2019, Hypersonix Launch Systems, took over work on the SPARTAN second stage and tested it in 2021. This project, Heliaq Advanced Engineering (ALV's original developer now defunct?) and Hypersonix all have close ties to the University of Queensland's Centre for Hypersonics.

Also in 2021, the U.S., U.K. and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021; it included "Hypersonic and Counter-Hypersonic Capabilities" which built on the existing joint U.S.-Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic cruise missile project. The University of Queensland is involved in this as well.

At the time, hypersonics was touted as Australia's flagship contribution to an agreeement that was mostly about nuclear submarine technology.

I'm just guessing but Hypersonix and U of Q probably shifted to much more lucrative defense work and away from competing with SpaceX and everyone else. All 3 countries are far behind Russia and China in hypersonic capabilities.

Collectively all this content is notable and needs a good home on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where -- suggestions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help with any of the heavy lifting if you decide to draftify. Feel free to ping me for sourcing or the write-up. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. B., the first 7 (existing) sources in the article are from researchers Smart, Schutte, Thoreau, and Preller, all directly tied to UQ/HAE and the ALV project, making them primary sources. Of the next 7 (new) sources you added, only two are solid WP:THREE candidates: The Register offers clear, independent coverage of ALV, and Financial Review provides balanced coverage, though it includes a few quotes from Smart. Three are borderline: ABC is heavily reliant on Smart's quotes, Aviation Week gives technical context but doesn’t focus on ALV, and New Atlas covers ALV under the broader SPARTAN project with heavy developer input. The remaining two, AEROSPACE and iTnews, are weak as they rely almost entirely on developer statements. To be fair, by Australian standards, Smart is not just a typical researcher. He’s a recognized expert in hypersonics who spent a decade at NASA before joining UQ ([22]), which is quite an uncommon profile. This prominence likely explains why he appears in nearly every source on ALV, sometimes tipping the balance on journalistic independence. HerBauhaus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 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.