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

Conscium

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

TOO SOON, as I cannot find reliable sources. References are not focused on the Conscium company. Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable for an entry in the encyclopedia at this time. Though WP:RS are listed in the references, they are behind paywall so accessing them for an assessment was impossible. But before search did turn out any impressive result for notability. Patre23 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. First off, it was written by ChatGPT and/or an overpaid editor for hire. Secondly, this company is too new to be the subject of an encyclopedia article; everything written in any of the sources is merely news. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Sharma

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

I can't see any sign of notability. Terribly written, simply a promotional article about a non notable person Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Technology, India, Delhi, and California. Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that does not even consider the obvious notability criterion, WP:PROF. IEEE Fellow is a pass of WP:PROF#C3; in fact this specific fellowship is used in the guideline as the prototypical example of a fellowship that passes this criterion. The description of the content of his dissertation is unsourced and should be trimmed, and the New Scientist piece should be used to describe what he has done rather than to promote him as someone who has appeared in New Scientist, but WP:DINC and these are not delete-worthy problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David_Eppstein and as not promotional by the subject. It appears to me that a different person with the same name attempted to hijack this article by editing twice to include films by them. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PROF#C3 as David Eppstein said, has a significant impact on his field with 47 publications and cited by ~16,700 according to his Google scholar, is a distinguished member of ACM ([1]), etc. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High-resolution high-definition

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

Absolutely no sources, fails WP:GNG, seems to be entirely original research 🤷 ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately: I agree with the OP. This article currently lacks any references, and seeing as the original edit dates back to 2005, I would assume it has lacked references and been a stub for the past 20 years. A brief Google search also doesn't return much in the way of references (<5), so unfortunately for this reason I think the only logical outcome is for the article to be deleted (or redirected if that's even necessary). 11WB (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Learn

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

This is an improvement over Infinity learn. However, the article still lacks reliable coverage. An online search of this edtech brand produces press releases covering Sri Chaitanya and few things of use here. I am not confident that this brand meets WP:NCORP. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt both titles for bludgeoning attempts. I don't see any sources published since the last AfD that would show how this meets WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTech

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

I couldn't find real WP:SIGCOV for this, excluding press releases, copies of press releases on industry websites, and one promotional interview. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TNT. "After dominating..." "pioneered..." The rest reads like a company brochure. Moving to draft could be an WP:ATD but I cannot find anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH so not sure if it can be fixed. Would also suggest a merge with Anderson Dick but that looks like a mess and possibly not notable either. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Public Radio

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

Contested prod without improvement. See page's talkpage for rationale. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Move to Draftspace - This is a fairly well-written page, but the sourcing is not strong enough or well-utilized enough. If works wants to continue on it, I could argue for moving it over to being a draft, although the fact that PROD was disputed without improvement makes this likely a failing idea. PickleG13 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have draftified it, but it wasn't eligible for draftification, except through the AfD process. I would have no problem with sending it to draft, as long as the editor agrees to put it through the AfC review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteboard Pattern

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

This article has several issues. While they could be fixed in isolation, it might be easier to start from scratch:

May not meet notability guidelines (tag added in 2018)
Orphan
Not written as per Wikipedia style (e.g., has external links within the text, references within titles)
Has grammar issues
Hard to understand
May need more references
Some of the statements may not be accurate (e.g., "The Listener Pattern is typically known as Observer Pattern. It is a Behavioral Pattern (aka Publish-Subscribe)," --> it is not correct that behavorial pattern is "also known as pub-sub") 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

Does not look to be a notable institution. Barely any in-depth coverage on the same. Most of it seems to be trivial mention or paid PR Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this is a public university with over 1000+ students and there is some coverage of it in various sources: [2] [3]. It is not extensive but probably enough for an University. --hroest 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Microsystems

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG and most WP:PROMO. - Amigao (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just an advertisement. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thank you for reviewing the entry. I'm not experienced in creating new articles and obviously I've messed up on this. Can you help with some guidelines of what would be needed to make this article acceptable? Is it about the quality of the references (I'll look at the guidelines) or are there other issues. Would love to learn a little so I don't waste your time with articles that are not of sufficient quality again in the future. MikeMaynardUK (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I-CTDi

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

This covers the same topic as Common rail#Acronyms and branding used and does not meet WP:N. It is simply a marketing term, used by Honda in the European market between 2002 and 2008.
The article was created as a redirect and remained one for 16 years, when long-term vandal Sevgilerde tried restoring it. It was then turned back into a redirect by ToadetteEdit, Rosguill, Ponyo, Boleyn, and a fifth editor who has since vanished. "i-CTDi" is simply a badging applied by Honda to ~~two separate diesel engines,~~ the N22A engine~~and an Isuzu engine modified by Honda~~. When Honda updated the N22A engine, they switched to the i-DTEC acronym. Both of these are simply marketing terms used by Honda for their diesel engines, just like Renault's DCi, Mercedes' Cgi, and Hyundai's CRDI - all of which were turned into articles by the same vandal and correctly turned back into redirects. Any of the meaningful content used here would be more suitable at Honda N engine or Kenichi Nagahiro (someone just needs to create that).
Also see D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi for additional, analogous redirects. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I see some interesting history here. A year ago, I BLAR'd the article claiming that it was non notable, but got quickly reverted. Since then, at least two other reviewers agreed that it should be redirected to common rail, but their attempts were both reverted as well. I currently see that Andy Dingley disagreed with the views of three unique reviewers and restored the article to the version made by the sock together with expanding the article. It looks different than what I initially saw so expect a commentary within the next 24 hours. But now I doubt that the history might warrant a report at ANI, who knows? ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a review of the article, and frankly enough, I do not know if it will pass WP:GNG or not. I see scholary journals discussing the subject in detail, but they are written by people at Honda, so I do not know whether the journals are independent enough or not. I also see that the first source is from Honda,so it does not establish notability in the context. I also see other websites, but they are in favor of the car models other than the subject itself. Unless it can be justified that at least two sources away from Honda show SIGCOV, Redirect to common rail with no prejudice to page development in the draftspace so as to be submitted via AFC. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that, as far as I can tell, the SAE article is specifically about the N22A engine – it's paywalled but the blurb makes no mention of the i-CTDi marketing name. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be motivated to create an article Kenichi Nagahiro , just so that you can delete it and call them a vandal?

We have policies here based on WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. You are ignoring these in favour of some personal disagreement with another editor. Even if they're guilty of whatever it is you allege, this has now grown to the detriment of the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH, please. Compare DCi, Cgi, CRDI, D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or a better message is to both of you to be separate one another and assume good faith. In particular that the comment above does not address the content but rather to the nominator, which is short of the Wikipedia:Civility policy. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to hide behind 'good faith' when you're the one repeatedly describing anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. First time you did this to me you were taken to ANI over it. You then repeated the same term. So please don't pretend that you didn't know that at least one of us here finds that a deeply offensive allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Slight merge to open source is possible, but this page should not remain as-is due to a general lack of any notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in Google Books, and reviewing past discussions, it seems there is some coverage in reliable sources ([4][5][6]), but all of it seems to be passing mentions. I would favor a redirect/merge to Open-source license or any other appropriate target. MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron (company)

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this blockchain company, even after searching for stuff under the founders' names and different variations of the company's name. The sources are all primary sources or routine coverage in unreliable sources. Not really anything that meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and United Kingdom. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Aviation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on non-reliable sources, and not a single reference appears to be strong or convincing. If anyone comes across any reliable and in-depth coverage related to this topic, please do ping me, I'd be happy to reconsider my decision. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’ve noticed that several of the sources included incorrect or broken URLs. I’ve corrected these where possible and removed any uncredited information. I hope this helps strengthen the article. Thank you! Lexiconia (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is usually a sign that the article was written by some AI. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, does not meet WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Credible sources used following a third iteration and notable verified information found within the platform X (formerly twitter) Blossom Index (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Twitter (and other social media) is not reliable and shouldn't be used as verification. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support WP:NCORP notability. References consist of warmed-over press releases and routine coverage (funding, partnership, etc.) An independent search failed to find non-trivial independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moloney

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

No sigcov after Googling, and the sources in the article aren't enough. Only the Sports Business Journal seems significant. The Reuters and MarketWatch articles don't mention him, the Bizjournals bio isn't a real article, and the rest are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable; only primary sources, and those merely say that he has had various jobs in the commercial world. I can't find any RS. Lamona (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples. Thank you for reviewing the article. If I could find more secondary and reliable sources on the internet, would it be possible to prevent the page from being deleted? Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sergiomarcus: of course! The purpose of a deletion nomination is to give people time to find sources and even improve the article if they can. Even if you can't find sources now, there's nothing stopping you from recreating the page if the topic becomes notable later. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desta Global

AfDs for this article:

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

If one checks Google News and other news, the company cannot be named notable. Just random here and there blogs, mentions, wp:churnalism, newswire releases, WOW award, RMAI Flame award. The previous discussion was not representative and resulted in no consensus. Many of the sources have been already removed as spam. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Of the references for DestaGlobal, Startup Success Stories India, Techcircle, Business Standard India, The Hindu Business Line (partially neutral), InterCon Dubai (YouTube), EVENTFAQS Media, Rural Marketing, and Digital Empowerment Foundation are focused on DestaGlobal’s success, awards, and positive impact. Most of these are based on the company’s claims without independent verification. The National and The Hindu are references that adhere to journalistic standards, providing neutral information about DestaGlobal’s work, but they lack detailed information. Hence, they are not sufficient to strongly support the claims. Some people may have different opinions about these two sources.-SachinSwami (talk) 7:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's very informative. 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) — 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I also agree that it is very informative. This article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology and release patterns that have been widely used and referenced in digital media communities for decades. While improvements in sourcing and structure may be needed, the topic itself is verifiably notable through its sustained use in torrenting platforms, piracy-related discussions, and tech journalism. Deletion appears to be motivated, at least in part, by ideological opposition to the subject matter rather than a neutral assessment of whether this information is citable and informative. Wikipedia’s purpose is to document what exists in the world—not to legitimise or condemn it.— SBWalkerP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure where in the nomination one would find "ideological opposition to the subject matter". If you are implying this is due to edits outside of the discussion, that is a WP:ADHOMINEM personal attack. You have also not provided sources as evidence for your claim it is notable. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clearly an LLM-written vote ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We can probably combine all of this into Online piracy. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Online piracy. May be informative but Wikipedia is not a guide. मल्ल (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd argue that this does comply with WP:NLIST. Release types are defined standards complied with by major scene groups - this topic is notable enough to have several papers written that discuss release groups and standards. I absolutely agree with you that new sources need to be found and that this article needs to be rewritten, but deletion isn't the way to go and I don't see a merge as able to do it justice. Manwithbigiron (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appinventiv Technologies

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

Google News results outside of the company's own blog posts are all your usual WP:SERIESA type content, some mentions in ProQuest but nothing substantial. All indications are that it is currently WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this company. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references used in this article are weak to satisfy notability guidelines of a company. This can be kept if significant coverage is provided. CresiaBilli (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability also don't have any significant media Coverage.Almandavi (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe it's still too early to consider the company notable. Even a simple Google search, particularly under the News tab, mostly shows articles from the company's own website rather than coverage from independent, reliable sources. Since there isn’t sufficient evidence of notability at this point, the company doesn't meet the required standards. Best of luck for the future! Baqi:) (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was a relisting warranted? – The Grid (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the google news results are from "Appinventiv " so some paid PR going on. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - kindly asking to move to draft, as the page has been reduced by some other editors and many sources were deleted. I need some time to evaluate and add new ones and then will submit at AfC. --Sonic-speed panda (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Ballot Group

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

Bit of a tricky one I think, given that it gets mentioned all the time, e.g., for their failed Georgia bid and it's considered a major vendor in the industry (see Axios, Engadget), but most of the more in-depth sources are the sort of WP:TRADESy sources that we would not typically consider to meet WP:ORGCRIT, for example InformationWeek / Dark Reading and Xconomy.

There are a couple of scholarly sources mentioning the company also, for example, Bernhard et al. (2019) and his later PhD thesis, Bernhard (2020), but I don't think it quite meets the criteria for depth of coverage. The best news source I found would probably be Washington Monthly, but again I don't think it quite meets the "directly and in-detail" threshold that we would need to write an article from it.

It would be a bit of a shame to have absolutely nothing on the company, but there are a few places where it is mentioned, so I figure I'd propose it as a redirect to Election audit § Ballot scans for 100% audits (given they're best known for their auditing software), or one of the other places where Numbersinstitute has added a mention. Any alternate proposals would also be appreciated! Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, Technology, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a redirect. kencf0618 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. Alldridge

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

Doing a Google search turned up more primary and sponsored sources, but it doesn't seem like there's sigcov for him or his companies and books. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Technology, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – [I've added two more citations to the page. I believe that with a bit more research, we can find additional reliable sources. Overall, the article looks good to me it's concise, non-promotional, and the information is supported by citations.] Black890 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As @Lamona: pointed out the Deadlines seems like a copy of the MSN press release, so not aa new source. The podcast link and press release about his MBA also don't count as SIGCOV. There isn't a single reliable source on the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The MSN article and the Deadlines are the same article under two different bylines and the MSN byline links to this page of someone who claims to be a travel writer. I suspect a company-prepared press release. I am going to declare those two unreliable on this basis. The TechyNews gives no "about" and nothing to use to evaluate its reliability, and it seems to be a "kitchen sink" web site. The Healthcare IT news is the sound file of an interview (not independent). His book is listed on Amazon as "Publisher: Self Publisher". Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May Mobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to fail WP:NORG and reads like an advertisement. - Amigao (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Struggling to find three decent sources to establish notability as a company. The use of closely paraphrased copyright violations (see article history) is another factor in recommending deletion - I am not confident that other parts of the content have not been similarly plagiarised. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't pass notability guidelines specially NORG and article looks like an advertisement. Fade258 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 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.

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR - chit-chatty blog, not an encyclopedia article, with insider information that could only be accessed through interviews or original sources. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Step Conference

AfDs for this article:

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

Annual event holds annual meetings. All refs are rather weak in WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Step, which has grown into a really rather prominent regional startup event, is now being held in Dubai, Riyadh, Istanbul and San Francisco. The article's patchy and poorly written, some of the sources verge on the promotional (I agree with the SIRS reservation) and because it's a startup event you'll be skirting WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE - BUT there's enough there for WP:GNG and more out there to add to the article if it can find someone to care for it and give it a good home. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, all of the names of attendees must be deleted. There are a lot of conferences out there that regularly have notable speakers and attendees but it's kind of embarrassing for them just to be name-dropped without appropriate context here. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The accessible references that satisfy WP:SIGCOV are sufficient to establish the subject's notability and comply with WP:EVENT. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:25, 10 June 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. Star Mississippi 14:38, 13 June 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day awards for up and coming but run of the mill business person. We are a charity. not LinkedIn. Protect against re-creation yet again. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am wholly leaning keep on this. Queen's Young Leader Award and Future Awards Africa definitely meets ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ekezie is notable, he passes general Wikipedia guidelines, having received significant coverage from reliable sources and has won the Queen's Young Leader Award. He has also been recognized by Forbes 30 under 30 in the finance category. He is also the recipient of the The Future Awards Africa (2022), which is very notable in Africa. Send down the rain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notability has changed since I voted to delete in 2020. While Forbes 30 under 30 at this point is a junk measure of significance, we have profiles in the Independent Nigeria (2022?), Face2Face Africa (2022), Nigeria Tribune (2018), BBC (2019), and an article in The Nation about receipt of the Future Awards Africa (2022). That, + receipt of Queen's Young Leader Award satisfies me that GNG is met. I really don't think the high bar of ANYBIO is met by those two awards, but it doesn't need to be. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 and Shoerack: I have major concerns about the reliability of many of the cited sources. I know speaking in broad strokes about Nigerian news sources may sound problematic, but see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (on the RSP page) for recurring discussions on the media landscape.

For example, just out of the sources you cite, I think the Independent, the Tribune, and the Nation articles read very suspect. See the last paragraph of the Independent for example: "Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph’s story is not merely about achievements; it’s a testament to the power of dreams, perseverance, and embracing opportunities [...] Kennedy’s journey encapsulates the essence of a true visionary. He serves as an inspiration to young minds across Africa and the world, showing that with determination and unwavering belief, anyone can turn their dreams into reality."

A similar quote from the last paragraph of the Nation article: "In a world where technology continues to evolve and reshape industries, Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph stands as a shining example of the innovation Africa has to offer. His trailblazing spirit, coupled with his visionary leadership, has propelled him to the forefront of the technology sector. As he continues to inspire the next generation of innovators, Ekezie-Joseph’s impact will undoubtedly leave an indelible mark on the continent and beyond."

And the last paragraph of the Tribune article: "His achievements have already inspired countless young minds across the nation, offering a beacon of hope and proof that determination and dedication know no bounds [...] The story of this remarkable achievement will undoubtedly serve as an inspiration for many aspiring scholars and will be remembered as a turning point in the nation’s educational landscape." Bridget (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I will strike my keep - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per Eddie891 above. Shoerack (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG given WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The one potentially notable point, his fintech company Kippa, closed down years ago. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 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.