Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Bookjam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article seems purely promotional. No articles exist that suggest notability beyond some PR copy at the time of its launch. Article was created by User:Webkini, which was a single purpose account Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Websites, and South Korea. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination ~ Finnmahoney (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Aerial Robotics Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability. None of the sourcing is secondary or independent, and I'm unable to find any GNG-level sourcing online, only sources from the school or trivial mentions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower: How would I prevent the article from being deleted? Do I just need to add more third-party sources? Thanks! Yelir 314 (talk) Yelir314 Yelir 314 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Aviation. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Reason for keeping: This is a page that is dedicated towards a design team that is based in Waterloo. The sources that were listed were from the documentation of the organization itself. Additionally, the article is meant to spread awareness about the organization, and is meant to be informative about the organization. Yelir 314 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yelir 314, Wikipedia has specific criteria for inclusion that are unique to our mission as an encyclopedia. We're not here for publicity -- take a look at one of our core policies: "What Wikipedia is not", in particular the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". To get an article here, this organization has to meet the high bar of our Notability (organizations and companies) guideline using references that meet our Reliable sources guideline. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Simplex Link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced stub failing WP:GNG. There are seemingly many sources, but they're all just the same primary sources, namely documentation for MicroBlaze. Would blank and redirect to MicroBlaze, but that article doesn't even mention this. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added some secondary sources. There is room for further improvement. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty good job, actually. Personally, I'd still probably lean to something like a redirect to Microblaze, but I'll let other editors decide on whether notability has been established. JustARandomSquid (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article still reads like a press release. It appears to have originally been created by the subject's spouse, and then worked on by someone who also created and worked on the spouse's page. And Wendell Brown does not seem famous enough to deserve an encyclopedic page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSID559 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What has changed since this was kept two years ago? Deletion is not cleanup. It is a puff piece, but he does seem to have been covered in the tech press over the years. Doesn't this need paring down rather than deletion? Fences&Windows 08:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This person is obviously notable as a programmer and is well-covered by reliable third-party sources. I've actually played multiple games he designed... and still remember them quite well. If the tone is off, then just edit it like any other article. There is no possible justification for this nomination. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There seems to be plenty of justification for deletion. Aside from not seeming to meet the criteria in WP:BASIC, the article appears to have been created and largely edited by the subject, the subject's family, and/or people employed by the subject. Many of the article's references are pretty sketchy in that they are no longer available and/or can't be verified to actually mention the subject, or seem to have been conjured out of thin air. For example, the article cites “page 43” of the “October 1996” issue of Computerworld. Computerworld was published weekly, and the back issues for 1996 are available via Google. I looked, and Ihe subject does not appear on page 43 (or anywhere else) in any of the October 1996 issues. Another one I randomly checked was a reference to the subject being mentioned on “page 17” of the August 1988 issue of Macworld. Again, no mention of the subject on page 17 or anywhere else in the issue. The article also attempts to omit any mention of any business failures that the subject was involved with - most significantly, Syncronys Softcorp and the Softram scandal in 1995 (which wasn't added until earlier this year). Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gets worse the more you dig: one of the “sources” cited in the article is an archive.ph link to something called The MITA Institute and Tech Accelerator, which lists Wendell Brown as an advisor and “member of the investment committee”. There is zero reliable third-party coverage of this entity, and the page referenced in the article is nothing more than a promotional bio of Wendell Brown, complete with a headshot. At the bottom it links to “wiki.wendellbrown.com,” which redirects back to this Wikipedia article. This is blatant WP:CIRCULAR, and fails WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:BLP, and further demonstrates the article’s promotional/COI origins. Why is this thing still up? Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. And, to repeat myself, it doesn't matter whether or not a person "seems" famous to an editor but whether reliable sources support a claim of notability. Your individual opinion does not matter here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Having gone through the sources on the page at the moment, there's nothing that would meet GNG that I can verify actually exists - I don't have access to an archive with the Oneonta Star article, but assuming that exists and isn't just an interview, then it would be the only one. As with Dharmabumstead above, I'm also concerned that a significant number of the sources either definitely don't exist or don't support what they're being cited for - especially concerning for a BLP. (I recognised the name because the Intellivisionaries podcast did a long interview with him, so there is fan interest in his games career, but it doesn't seem to have produced any significant coverage in reliable sources.) Adam Sampson (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it seems like the "delete" votes are ignoring coverage in reliable sources, and focusing entirely on sources cited for Brown's personal life, family, or education. But what I see is a number of citations to reliable, independent sources for his career as a programmer:

• Bill Loguidice, Matt Barton: Vintage Game Consoles: An Inside Look at Apple, Atari, Commodore, Nintendo, and the Greatest Gaming Platforms of All Time, CRC Press (2014). Snippet view, could only see that Brown is mentioned as the programmer of Beauty and the Beast, which I played in the 1980's.
• (Not cited, but probably should be, as it features a chapter about Beauty and the Beast) Brett Weiss, 100 Greatest Console Video Games: 1977–1987, Schiffer + ORM (2024). Good preview, also verifies Nova Blast, which I also played, and Moonsweeper. This source also cites several published reviews of Beauty and the Beast.
• Ziff Davis, "MiniFinders", in MacUser (May 1986), p. 128, cited for Brown establishing Hippopotamus Software.
• Terry Ward, Programming C on the Macintosh, Addison-Wesley, Boston (1985), p. 252, cited for Brown's Hippo-C software compiler.
• "Reviews", in Macworld – The Macintosh Magazine, PC World Communications (September 1985), p. 65, also cited for the Hippo-C compiler and its debugging tools.
• "A Turning Point for Atari", in Compute!, ABC Publishing (April 1986), p. 31, cited for Hippo software's various productions, including the ST Sound Digitizer.
• Jim Pierson-Perry, "A Sound Editing Revolution", in Electronic Musician, Polyphony Publishing Co., San Bruno (1986), cited for Brown being asked by a notable post-production company to develop sound-editing software.
• Rick Davies, "Hybrid Arts ADAP", in Music Technology Magazine (Nov. 1986), 68–69, cited for the development of the ADAP digital recording system.
• Michael R. Perry, "What Does Hollywood Know About Atari?", in Start Magazine, cited for the use of ADAP recording system in various well-known productions.
• "Hippo-C creator Wendell Brown's new ADAP SoundRack", in Macworld, Mac Publishing (August 1988), p. 17, cited for the use of ADAP by well-known recording artists and for amusement parks, and also cited for Brown's work with National Semiconductor.
• "From Appalachian Hills to Silicon Valley", in Computerworld (October 1996), p. 43, cited for Brown co-founding a cybersecurity company.

I'm not going to spend all morning looking through the other tech publications cited in the later sections; I think that the above articles are more than enough to prove notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. They don't have to spend pages and pages talking about Brown; all they have to do is demonstrate that he did notable things—such as programming widely-known games and being one of the developers of compiling software for Macintosh and of widely-used sound-editing technology relied upon by Hollywood and various recording studios, as well as cybersecurity and telecommunications software.

It's unimportant whether the sources about Brown's personal life, awards, or achievements received significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources, if reliable, third-party sources demonstrate his notability in the tech industry, which clearly they do. I can only assume that the "delete" votes either deliberately ignored all of these sources and others like them, or decided for some reason that they were irrelevant because they're not all available to read over the internet. But that would not be a valid reason; sources do not have to be available over the internet. They just have to exist and support what they're cited for. The fact that a particular editor or editors could not obtain copies to review doesn't make them unreliable or unverified.

If parts of the article read like a "puff piece", then edit them so that they don't—preferably without deleting reliable, third-party sources that do go toward demonstrating the subject's notability (that would be dangerously close to sabotaging an article for the purpose of supporting deletion, which would be a serious ethical violation). Ordinary editing is cleanup, and deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if you actually look at them, many of those sources don't support what they're being cited for, and those that do are passing references. MacWorld August 1988 p17 - the cited page is an advert for a different product, and there is no mention of Brown in the issue at all, nor could I find the named article anywhere else. From Appalachian Hills similarly does not seem to exist. Programming C on the Macintosh - it does describe Hippo-C, but nowhere does it say that it was the first C compiler for the Mac, which is what it's being cited for. Music Technology's review of ADAP is cited for Brown and Oliver founding Niltech in 1986, which is not mentioned in the article; the only mention of Brown is a quote from him. MacUser May 1986 p128 has no mention of Brown or Hippopotamus Software; there is a mention of Hippo Computer Almanac on p134, but again that's not what it's being cited for. And so on. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeekSpeak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entirely WP:PRIMARY sourcing; no indication of notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Technology. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see details about a podcast, but the term is used to describe tech talk... Sourcing in the article is either primary or non-RS... Other AfD was basically "Keep, it's on NPR"... Not enough sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article contains promotional content that is written in an advertising tone, rather than a neutral and encyclopedic style. It appears more like an advertisement than an informative entry. Endrabcwizart (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Technology, Software, and California. jolielover♥talk 09:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the reported issues have been resolved to result in an article that is neutral and informative, supported by credible sources, and is no longer an orphan page. Sebgreene (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- given the revisions in making the article more NPOV. Asides from several SIGCOV citations supporting it.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The article is now neutral and informative and demonstrates SIGCOV over a sustained period. Nduplan (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This user has a clear conflict of interest with this topic; they previously created an article on Neno Duplan, the CEO of Locus, which was deleted at AfD back in 2011. It seems most of their contributions have focused on this company. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a relist, please? I don't think the promotional tone has been fixed, which casts doubt on the other claims made by editors above. Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sebgreene@Lorraine Crane@Gjb0zWxOb, could you please specify the three best sources demonstrating the notability of this company? Toadspike [Talk] 09:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have gone through the first ten sources cited in the article and none contained independent, significant coverage. NCORP requires several such sources with such coverage to demonstrate notability. Toadspike [Talk] 09:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now reviewed the remaining sources. Nearly all are primary or unreliable (interviews, blogs, government reports) or do not have significant coverage (also applies to the government reports). The only exceptions are [1][2], which are probably good enough to count towards NCORP; [3], which is reliable but doesn't have enough on Locus to be considered significant coverage; and [4], which seems to be based entirely on company info/press releases. Toadspike [Talk] 10:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't find any other good sources through a web search, so I am !voting delete. Toadspike [Talk] 11:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello! given the current citations included, I would say 31, 32, 33 are samples of SIGCOV, of course I do welcome the possibility of feedbacks or critiques like what you have done which helps me refine my experience here, and given your further input and analysis on this, will not oppose a Draftify vote, if the consensus is that the subject is at least generally notable and can be improved easily towards a standalone article after a few more editing, Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s interesting to see some consensus on which sources stand out to others here. I would add that a couple of the scholarly citations ( 4 and 5 ) interest me due to the depth of coverage on the topic and the authorship by scientists in the nuclear community. As I think another person agreed, source #14 is also strong and seems to be another example of focused editorial coverage rather than academic. As a side note, someone suggested that government sources like technical reports from federal agencies (like 6, 7, 9, 10) are unreliable, but I disagree. Sebgreene (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging participants in the previous AfD: User:Teratix, User:A. B., User:CNMall41, and User:Pharaoh of the Wizards. Toadspike [Talk] 11:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing has changed since the previous AfD. There's a large quantity of sources but none are any good: thinly-veiled press releases, reports which only mention Locus in passing, blog posts written by the CEO, and so on. As Toadspike said, advocates for keep can't just chant "there's SIGCOV" – they need to explain which sources they believe to be significant and why. Incidentally, as A. B. pointed out at the last AfD, surely User:Nduplan has better things to do with his time than personally defend his company's Wikipedia article? At least have the dignity of outsourcing your shameless promotion to the marketing professionals like everyone else does. – Teratix ₵ 13:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow editors to consider whether the promotional tone previously noted has been sufficiently eradicated. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per Toadspike's analysis there are 2 WP:RS that provide SIGCOV of the organization, so it meets WP:GNG. I actually conducted a WP:BEFORE search independent of the sources in the article and found the ZDNet article as well. Katzrockso (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZDNet was written by a contributor, not a staff writer so you can chalk that up to being the same as WP:FORBESCON. What are the other two sources you speak of?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT is specifically worded so that companies have to meet a higher bar than the GNG to be presumed notable. Toadspike [Talk] 19:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per sources identified by Toadspike and ZDNet article mentioned by Katzrockso. I also found [5]. It seems the technology has more WP:SIGCOV than the company itself, but there should be enough to keep the article and rewrite it in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this is the same company. It has a different logo and different leadership (CEO/CTO) from the Locus we're talking about: [6]. Toadspike [Talk] 19:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The ZDNet article is an obvious zero-effort rewrite of the press release Locus put out the day before. It should be given no weight in deciding whether the independent coverage requirements have been met. The closer should discount any arguments that rely upon this source as contributing to coverage requirements. – Teratix ₵ 12:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This subject does not seem notable and does not have enough news coverage, mostly press releases. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Group-IB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hi there, I am a Group-IB employee. After working to update this article for several months, I now believe that the company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. The article now focuses more on the company's former CEO and on F.A.C.C.T/F6 - a Russian company which was created when Group-IB divested in 2021. Additionally, the page references reflect routine coverage of the company, not WP:SIGCOV and I haven't found stronger, in-depth sources to remedy this.

I am not an extended confirmed user and can't tag the article for deletion myself. DL02042024 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 September 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Companies, Technology, Software, and Russia. jolielover♥talk 04:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot say it doesn't meet notability, the company is Ilya Sachkov's only child and its article, current version contains enough media coverage. Akishima Yuka (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem to be a pretty well known security company. They are also mentioned in quite a few cyber incidents in international and local incidents from bit of searching. Greatder (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the article should give more focus more on their investigations and report that are reported pretty often. Greatder (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenUp (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company. Coverage is based on routine funding rounds WP:ORGTRIV. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Psychology, Technology, and Netherlands. jolielover♥talk 02:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP: The wording of the company can make it challenging to find citations of them but I checked for their founder Gijs Coopens and was able to find a lot of coverage about him relating to OpenUp.

  Lack of coverage can be due to the fact that they are a new company. Them being nominated for LinkedIn startup of the year means people are interested in this company as well. 185.61.69.110 (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not finding any significant coverage of the company. As noted in the nomination, available coverage is either primary or falls under WP:ORGTRIV and available coverage does not meet the standards for NCORPS.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP OpenUp is a legitimate company. 185.61.69.110 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have !voted twice in this AfD. Only one will be considered when closing. 11WB (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I cannot find any significant coverage either. OuOneGoib (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - Company is notable because of wide coverage. For example:
  • New Mobile App Set to Improve Mental Health Access for All
  • OpenUp: personal contact with 200.000 end users
  • Amsterdam-based mental health startup OpenUp bags €15M to expand services in Europe
  • Founders on funding: OpenUp’s Gijs Coppens on recent funding round and investor sentiment toward mental health startups
  • Counselling in times of coronavirus: staff get to talk to a psychologist for free

There are many more articles about them. This is just a few. Happiestgir1 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is dead. The second appears to be based entirely on company announcements and reads promotionally as well; not independent. The third source has no byline, is from aan industry publication, and I can find no information about its editorial board/policy; probably not reliable. The fourth, written by "Editorial team", looks like a paid piece. The fifth is the only potentially-usable source here; although from a university newspaper, it seems to be reliable. However, the article appears to be based entirely on an interview with/quotes from Schelvis, who is an employee of the company. In my view, this does not qualify as independent, significant coverage of the type required by WP:NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first link was presumably supposed to be [7], which also has no byline and is likely a paid piece. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per new citations that were found by User:Happiestgir1, notability is established and WP:NCORP is met. Shinadamina (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based on assessment by @Happiestgir1 and articles presented. Also the Linkedin Startup of The Year Award helps their notability.Darkm777 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have checked the remaining sources cited in the article; only one [8] looks like it could meet all the requirements of NCORP. This one might come close, but I am unsure of independence and reliability [9]. The rest are obviously paid or not significant coverage. 1.5 sources is not enough for an NCORP pass. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Impact Investor source is dated the day after they raised 15m in funding and relies entirely on comments from the founder - that isn't independent content, fails ORGIND and NCORP. The Sprout source is a profile which relies entirely on information provided by the company with no evidence of independent research as required by ORGIND, also fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more agreement after sources were found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG notability guidelines. The sourcing is limited to routine announcements and minor press coverage, with no evidence of significant, independent, and lasting secondary analysis. Reads more like promotional material than an encyclopedic topic. Herinalian (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to vote as I was the new page reviewer who marked the article as reviewed. I think I remember speaking to the author somewhere, but I can't place that discussion unfortunately. My issues with the article were in regards to WP:PROMO and WP: VERIFIABILITY. I must have given the article the benefit of the doubt and as such, marked it as reviewed. I've left feedback on most articles I've reviewed this month, however it appears I forgot to this time, so I apologise. 11WB (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11wallisb I wouldn't worry too much about it, you correctly noticed that the article has issues and the review is probably within the NPP margin of error. In future, I suggest being more careful with sources: You might want to note the tells for paid/promotional articles I listed above, as these apply across the world. Toadspike [Talk] 09:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning when it comes to sources in respect to Wikipedia classification and policy. Based on your summary from the 29 Sep, I was correct to mark the article with the WP:VERIFIABILITY tag. This company could very well be notable, the article just needs the sources to prove it. 11WB (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Wires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or GNG. All sourcing is passing mentions of things they reported or about Mike Solana. The only good source is the Atlantic piece on its founder Mike Solana, who is far closer to being notable; Pirate Wires does not inherit his notability. I would say he is notable, but his article was previously deleted at AfD, so what do I know. Edit: Oh, apparently it got remade. Redirect there if that still exists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, Companies, Popular culture, Technology, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that Pirate Wires is notable based on several of the sources provided from Business Insider and certainly the piece from The Atlantic. Both Solana and the publication that he founded can be notable, these are not mutually exclusive. Passes WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mike Solana, assuming that doesn't get deleted. I !voted weak delete in the last AfD about Solana, but looking at it again I'm not quite as convinced and agree that there's a case that he scrapes over the bar. Our notability standards for companies are higher though, and I don't think any of the sources besides the article in The Atlantic are sufficient to count towards WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yes, there is a pretty limited amount of sources covering Pirate Wires, but i think its borderline enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Today, a new report from Business Insider was made that significantly mentioned this organization ([10]) indicating that this company is in the process of becoming more notable. G13 vs G14 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Business Insider is not a reliable source and so cannot count for notability 2) WP:NCORP takes priority over GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As you already noted, it was considered "No consensus", that does not mean that it cannot count for notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's true; a no consensus does not mean it is reliable, definitionally, it means we have no consensus. Given BI's recent exposure for improper usage of AI it is an especially concerning source. Even if we counted BI that is two sources, one of which is about the founder, which is also not enough for NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PARAKANYAA I think you are usually on point with your nominations and I am generally hesitant to disagree with you on things, and you're welcome to do whatever you want of course, but I think you may wish to consider withdrawing your nomination here. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iljhgtn Please don't feel pressured to agree with me if you don't, disagreement is healthy (though I am flattered you think so highly of me, I think you make great edits too).

  I would freely withdraw if there were multiple strong sources but as I don't see it; The Atlantic source is good, but even counting Business Insider as 1 good source, there are still only 2 that contribute to notability. Even discounting NCORP, while GNG's "multiple" sources will range by case, so 2 may be enough for some topics, but 2 sources for this media outlet that writes on very controversial subjects is not enough.

  Also, I can't withdraw even if I wanted to, because one other person has voted something other than keep. AFAIK you can only withdraw if all votes are keep (I have been told off for this before). If it is kept, well that is fine, I'm not going to object to it or anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The outlet's reporting has WP:USEBYOTHERS, [11] (this is not PR, it's staff-written journalism), [12] and there's WP:SIGCOV [13] (WP:BI does not say BI can't be used to establish notability, and concerns are with BI's syndicated content, not it's staff journalist-written reporting). It's not the New York Times, but it's notable by our policies. Longhornsg (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:USEBYOTHERS is a guideline for determining whether a source is reliable, not for determining whether it’s notable. MCE89 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I understand. I'm using it here as indicatative of WP:NMEDIA. Longhornsg (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't find any substantial sources ABOUT PW. There are mentions in articles about other topics, but it's usually stating that PW had a headline, or it had an article that said "X" where "X" is a single sentence. That's not enough for GNG. I am ok with redirecting to Mike Solana until the time that there is more sourcing about the media company. Lamona (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why did you propose a redirect to Mike Solana and then AFD that? Metallurgist (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Metallurgist I think that one is notable and has a better chance of surviving AfD, however it was remade with the exact same sourcing as last time in a much worse state than last time and so I felt it should be nominated for procedural reasons, to get a consensus to not delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus is to not delete if theres no AFD. This makes absolutely no sense. If there are issues with that article, but you agree with the article, why not bring it up on the talk page? This is quite bizarre. Metallurgist (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There was an AfD like 3 months ago? I could have G4 nominated it because the sourcing is not any better. I value the previous consensus more than my opinion on the sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would these three sources count as WP:SIGCOV? [14] [15] [16] G13 vs G14 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They aren't reliable sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's probably better to use WP:NMEDIA for this particular article. There is WP:SIGCOV as seen here [17][18][19][20]. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarification, NMEDIA is not a guideline. NCORP is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but this still meets NCORP per sources. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not; see WP:SIRS. From my reading, I'm not sure how this would meet NMEDIA, even if that did apply? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources about this company. I'm hesitant to redirect because the article about Mike Solana is at AfD.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SIGCOV exists: [21] [22] [23] [24] G13 vs G14 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Business Insider has been using AI in their recent articles. The third is an opinion piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Came across this primarily due to the recent PIA case and coverage by Ashley Rindsberg. Though I've heard about the blog in other contexts (MAGA/tech-bros) and from the coverage it has received, primarily Atlantic, a borderline case of notability can be made. I dispute that either Solana or Pirate Wires can be assessed independently and would argue that Solana's notability depends on this blog than the other way around. But at this point the sources aren't firm for either of these for me to definitively consider them notable. Leaning towards a delete here. Gotitbro (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, just checking back in on this discussion. I would support a merger between Pirate Wires and Mike Solana, although I'm trying to figure out which way the merger would go in terms of what article gets merged into what. It seems that current coverage bounces between whether Solana is more notable [25] or Pirate Wires [26]. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be a rare broad support of Pirate Wires as a source (with some disagreement), and they seem to be gaining notability enough to remain an article. Metallurgist (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you referring to this discussion "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com"? I had noticed that discussion but did not look into it in detail, will do so now. But however way that RSN discussion closes [hasn't yet] would not really affect NCORP notability. I can understand that they are "gaining" notability but no in depth sources have been brought forth that prove that conclusively so. Gotitbro (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There does seem to be WP:SIGCOV at least from a search with the Atlantic article and it has been featured on HBO. If anything it does seem to minimally meet WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]