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

Talks at Google

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

Redirect to Google. Not independently notable and lack of WP:SIGCOV about Talks at Google as a standalone subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google as a viable ATD, per Longhornsg. Sal2100 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google.It is not independently notable and fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Pretty much nothing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureCash

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

Outside of the usual WP:CORPROUTINE, I could not find any coverage of this company. The Bengali name (শিওরক্যাশ) returned similar results, for example, about seeking partnership and closing. Unlikely to have enough sources to write a proper article. Would not object to finding a suitable redirect target, but my mind is blank on that so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Bangladesh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (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 G11 speedy deleted‎. (non-admin closure) Procyon117 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S32 Technologies

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or credibly indicate its importance. No secondary sources. Speedy deletion nomination contested by page creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and re-add tag. Article is clearly promotional and is elegible for deletion under G11. @PARAKANYAA: Article creators almost always complain about someone adding CSD tags to their articles, and this doesn't mean that we shouldn't tag them for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris I was more confused by their response that by requesting deletion I was covering up for some sort of grand mass surveillance scheme. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoping the speedy deletion tag will work. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2024 (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.

Offset time

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

It's not a notable term. No citations for almost 20 years. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete A GBook look reveals that the term is used a lot in technical discussion of OBS; that said, I don't think what the article says is true. OTOH the article on OBS is completely non-technical technobiz buzz-speak, and actual technical discussion is likely to need this term. At any rate I just don't see it needing its own page. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Mark Kotter. Just noting that the target article has also been brought to AFD for a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit.bio

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

There does not appear to me to be any independent, reliable, in-depth coverage for this company, as required by WP:NCORP. I have conducted a search I believe to be extensive, though perhaps not comprehensive, and the results are as follows:

Source assessment

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?
All the citations already in the article seem to be pressers except the Forbes contributor and WP:TECHCRUNCH so skipping to: Reynolds, Matt (2021-12-20). "This Startup Is Making—and Programming—Human Cells". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2024-10-20.	–		– Maybe the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph, and the first two of the last, are both directly about the subject and not quotes.	Bit of a stretch to call those three secondary.
"Cambridge Company Bit Bio Presses Enter To The Software Of Life". The Healthcare Technology Report. 2020-06-23. Retrieved 2024-10-20.	Seems like WP:TRADES likely paraphrasing a presser to me	No idea how reliable	Skipped, quickfail on other criteria
Regalado, Antonio. "Here's why I am coining the term "embryo tech"". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2024-10-20.			Namecheck due to quoting founder, no actual coverage
Google didn't pick up these ones for me for some reason, but: Bawden, Tom (2020-10-22). "Scientists could make an organ from scratch within a decade after cracking human cell code". i. Retrieved 2024-10-20.			Seems like a routine rehash of PR material to me
Whipple, Tom (2020-10-27). "Bit.Bio: British firm cracks code for stem cells". The Times. Retrieved 2024-10-20.			Slightly better than the one from i but still routine coverage of the partnership announcement IMO	–
Knapton, Sarah (2022-05-21). "Scientists unlock code for stem cell transformation which could provide cure for Huntington's". The Daily Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-10-20.	Again, this is 90% quotes

(No relevant results were found for Elpis BioMed)

There are, of course, hundreds of other press releases, but I've omitted those for brevity. Additionally, even if appropriate sources meeting NCORP are found for this subject, half of the paragraphs in § Origins are biomedical in nature, which makes the sourcing to press releases instead of actually reliable sources highly inappropriate, and I would advocate that the article be confined to draftspace on those grounds alone (or otherwise removed from indexing). The creator of the article is also a single purpose account, though they have denied a COI. It is possible that they are simply an overly enthusiastic new editor. Also noting I have no objection to a redirect, with or without retaining article history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, Technology, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on UPE and related Mark Kotter article

Alpha3031, just a brief note to say that there is abundant off-wiki evidence to indicate that the article creator here is a UPE linked to the company. That being the case, I wonder if you had considered the possibility of also referring the article on Bit.bio founder Mark Kotter to AfD as it is equally promotional and the work of the same UPE user? (I would do so myself but for unfamiliarity with the process of creating an AfD).

Further info on the background can be found at the relevant thread at COIN, here [1]. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did skim that thread but I missed the part about off-wiki evidence. If that's the case then the paid-en-wp VRT queue may be able to do things that AfD does not normally do, like enforce AfC (or block the editor in question). However, I will make it a priority to conduct a BEFORE for that article as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. My feeling is that the very easily accessible evidence is so compelling that referral to paid-en-wp should not really be necessary. The user is clearly a promo-only SPA with a disruptive editing pattern who has ignored several warnings. The transparent nature of the UPE should therefore be sufficient for the user to be site blocked.

Thank you for looking at the Mark Kotter article, much appreciated. If the two articles end up being deleted then hopefully that will put an end to the promo/SPA/COI activity around these subjects. Axad12 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On an initial review, I would expect deletion to be an unlikely outcome as Kotter would be measured against WP:NPROF (though I could be wrong, I don't do BIO AfDs as often). On the other hand, WP:BLP applies to positive content as well as negative, so I expect the best path forward would be to exclude any content that seems overly promotional, with the use of either the usual Dispute resolution or blocks and page protection as required, depending on the specific cause of the issue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 and Axad12: Yep an h-index of 48 is an easy pass of WP:PROF #1. SmartSE (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse, noted. Thank you for the work you have done on the Kotter article to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very strong delete, as per nom. I'd also request that sanctions be implemented against the creator, who has been asked to declare their transparent UPE/COI status but has refused to do so, and has repeatedly removed COI etc templates from the articles they have created. Axad12 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: Given the negative contents of the source assessment table I am against a redirect. The additional source material not covered by the table is apparently sourced to press releases. Once all the various kinds of poor sourcing are stripped out, what is there left to redirect? Axad12 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect means there will be nothing at the page and anyone trying to go to Bit.bio will be taken to Mark Kotter instead Axad12. Not sure what you mean by what is left, unless I'm misunderstanding something? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was momentarily (and rather foolishly) confusing 'redirect' with 'merge'. My mistake. Axad12 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Mark Kotter The coverage is either local or in trade publications which isn't sufficient to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, since the biography is notable, we should probably redirect there. SmartSE (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:NCORP, I searched Newspapers.com and Google News but was not able to find anything of note. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am on the same page with the source assessment with the exception of Wired which does meet WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. However, the rest of the sourcing is mentions, unreliable, or routine announcements. A redirect could be in order assuming that the founder is notable. I am looking at that page now. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2024 (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.

TeleZapper

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

Unsourced article and has been tagged as such since 2011. Very little information to be found, one review but mostly just adverts. Nthep (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article doesn't have any sourcing to speak of, that's because it's very old. I'm coming in at a Keep after finding some hits for this in books and magazines on a Google Books search. Andre🚐 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. The Wall Street Journal wrote about it. Here's another news source attributed to "AP Technology Writer" and also published here. I'm not sure about the usability of the rest of these, but in case they're useful, it's Mentioned in this book, andthis one and this one. It was discussed in a congressional committee hearing and a book on marketting refrom. It's listed in this index. McYeee (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please add the sources to the article. Most of those you have listed are paywalled or geo-locked to me, so I can't read them to add them. Nthep (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep: You can use Archive for that. GrabUp - Talk 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
most of them aren't archived. Nthep (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still no refs in article. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXISTS, this is not a valid deletion rational. McYeee (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 26 October 2024 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SenzMate

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

At the moment, it seems like it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this company. The only other coverage I found was this interview I found in Lanka Business Online, which is an interview with little to no independent or secondary content. The Daily FT articles read like press releases, so I am inclined to exclude them based on the precautionary principle expressed in WP:ORGIND. May be a few more years before the requisite coverage exists for us to be able to write a proper article on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: Currently doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. SirBrahms (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2024 (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.

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [2], [3] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [4] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing the attached sources - [1] - EDR Magazine is not an RS, [2]- Firstpost is not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow, [3] - Alarabiya is also not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Alarabiya, reliable or not?. As a nominator, I have done required WP:BEFORE and also conducted the simple google search and the google news search as suggested by the IP. However, these efforts did not yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A similar group of IPs, starting with the range 111.92.xx.xx, has been involved in editing another page about a military equipment manufacturing company from the Middle East. It wouldn't be surprising if they were all connected. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 25 October 2024 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civolution

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

Both of these articles are written by then marketing director Josserand, apparently from his personal knowledge. Much of the original text seems to be entirely impossible to find sources for. Fails WP:V, WP:N and is essentially a WP:BROCHURE besides. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Civolution and Teletrax articles present a dizzying stream of takeovers, divestments, etc., as do the articles on the entities to which they were previously associated. At the moment, the residues seem to sit with Kinetiq of Pennsylvania, on which there is no article here. But I am struggling to see coverage which rises above WP:CORPTRIV announcements; there needs to be something to demonstrate that the company's endeavours,under whichever ownership model, were actually notable. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. I’m confused by anyone who would want to promote a defunct company that did something so insignificant and apparently didn’t even make much money. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Tumbleweed Communications with the history preserved should there be a desire to merge. Star Mississippi 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corvigo

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

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tumbleweed Communications. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I am not opposed to redirection as an ATD (and would have WP:BLARed had there not been a previous PROD) but I don't believe there is anything that is appropriate to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:13, 18 October 2024 (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.

Stephen Harrison (author)

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

As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Technology, Internet, and Texas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliate WFAA and NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. - Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't looked at it already, something from [5] might be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more input before making up my mind. Bearian (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [6] might be considered a partial GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm fine with draftifying the article as an WP:ATD! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Draftification since we have an editor willing to work on improving this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not find many articles beyond what the subject has written fails WP:GNG and does not meet #3 under WP:CREATIVE as it lacks multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've been digging and I'm still on the fence whether or not the person is notable under WP:NPROF. The article as it is cites almost entirely info from him and multiple links that suggest secondary coverage are broken or do not direct to information about Noci specifically. If there were noted impact on the field from at least one or two external sources (e.g. an award or election to an academy, or even announcement for an invited speaking event at a University), I would be leaning keep. Since this has been relisted 2x, I wanted to leave some information I found to help others find info and provide their input. I think the only two WP:NPROF criteria are a combo of C1 and C4, or C7. For C1, Google Scholar citations are okay, but hard to judge based on numbers alone. Looking at Scopus gives a slightly less notable view looking at FWCI for Author Position box (1=average amount of citations in field) and in the Impact tab. He is a middle author in his most cited article. I can't find scholarly reviews that support a large impact in the field though, other than writing about online journalism earlier than most. For C4, I couldn't find anything super directly showing use of publications in courses or other info, but I think something like that would be . For books, two of the highest from WorldCat shows this book at 43 libraries and this one at 24. I just am not seeing enough independent writings or reviews/scholarly works citing Noci's work as highly impactful in the field. For C7, I did not find anything on his contributions as a commenter on radio/news shows, however this could be to do with my lack of Spanish and related language abilities. Cyanochic (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep. Far from my expertise and the language barrier is a barrier, but the GS citations[7] look quite healthy to me. Highest citns 794,585,315 with four more papers >200 and a further seven with >=100 citations. The subject is first author on the highest-cited item. If he mainly publishes in Spanish then that might impact citations too. Uhooep: Do you have any more specific concerns? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at edit history, this was translated from Spanish wiki, and went via AfC where it was accepted by Asilvering. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I don't know enough about the field to know what "highly cited" is for this guy in particular, so if you were hoping to get more context, I'll have to disappoint. But between the combination of "not science field" and "not English language", an h-index of 37 seemed really high to me. Well over the "good enough to be worth a full AfD discussion" bar I use when evaluating AfC drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([8] [9] [10] [11]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't close AFDs with Move closures which are an editorial decision. If you want this outcome, argue for a Keep and then a page move can be discussed. Also, it really helps the closer if you provide a link to the exact Redirect or Merge target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 18 October 2024 (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⁺⁺ 13:15, 24 October 2024 (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.