Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBchrch (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 16 August 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IVC Data and Insights.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

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. ✗plicit 14:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IVC Data and Insights

IVC Data and Insights (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 subject publishes data on VC/PE in Israel. However, both the sources cited in the article and the ones that can be found from a WP:BEFORE only cite the company's data, but they never focus on the company itself or expand on it. As such, the company fails WP:NORG. JBchrch talk 12:03, 16 August 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.

GR8 Tech

AfDs for this article:
GR8 Tech (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)

AFD recently closed by a blocked editor (who owns a series of accounts that were used for Keep discussions). AlanRider78 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging previous + current discussion participants @Gheus @Norlk @Amlikdi @Linkusyr @Chippla360 @Ramos1990 @AlanRider78 @Jungle archer Oreocooke (talk) 22:31, 28 August 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 00:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Wellbeing

Digital Wellbeing (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Absolutiva 22:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 19 August 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.
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. While the sole Keep carried no P&G weight, there is no quorum to delete, even after three weeks. Feel free to renominate in two months. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MobileX

MobileX (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)

Fails WP:NCORPS. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep – The article has been significantly improved since the AfD nomination. It now includes additional reliable, third-party sources such as CNET and the Orange County Business Journal, which offer independent coverage of MobileX. Based on these sources, the subject appears to meet both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Edits have also been made to improve neutrality and tone. Open to continued collaboration to further strengthen the article. Tbenny (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those sources show that this company meets GNG. The CNET article contains a two-sentence-long mention of this company. And that Orange County Business Journal article is primary. I also noticed you added this promotional article ([9]) which should not be used for notability. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this is very helpful feedback. I've edited to replace the CNET and Orange County Business Journal articles and removed the Android Guys article. I also added info on availability as well as some additional references from Bloomberg and How-To Geek. Please let me know what other edits I should incorporate to meet the community’s expectations for verifiability and notability. Tbenny (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:15, 12 August 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm Shift Technologies

Paradigm Shift 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)

This article is quite simply a brochure. It was draftified by another editor previously, but moved back to mainspace again by the author. The sourcing here is extremely weak at best, if there's even anything to build an article on - we have no room for more advertisements. MediaKyle (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many of the sources [10] [11] [12] are almost identical promotional text hosted on different sites. Straightforward WP:ADVERTISING. Epsilon.Prota talk 12:47, 12 August 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.
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! 22:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Integrated Manufacturing

Advanced Integrated Manufacturing (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 stub, no sources since 2010. A BEFORE only found very routine coverage. CoconutOctopus talk 22:00, 11 August 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.
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! 07:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Agarwal

Ethan Agarwal (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)

Fails GNG. Sourcing is largely drawn from primary materials, promotional interviews, and press release–driven coverage tied to the subject’s ventures. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:42, 11 August 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.
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 keep‎. Editors can continue to discuss whether or not this article should be improved and/or split into several articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of historic inventions

AfDs for this article:
Timeline of historic inventions (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)

There can a lot of ambiguity on which inventions are notable to be included especially with recent ones. Whether an invention is groundbreaking or not is subjective. I would suggest merging it somewhere, but I'm not sure where to merge it (Invention maybe?). Deletion is probably the best option here. Interstellarity (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With a quick search, I found numerous articles in reliable sources that discuss important inventions throughout history, meaning that this subject meets the threshold of notability for a stand-alone article. The lede clearly defines the criteria for inclusion as "widely recognized by reliable sources as having had a direct impact on the course of history that was profound, global, and enduring". Whether or not an item belongs on the list is not "subjective" by the editor, but based on sources. Any items in question can be discussed on the article's talk page. Rublamb (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nom said, what constitutes "historic" - and what constitutes an "invention" - is extremely subjective. For example, the list includes the founding of YouTube, which was more of a successful business concept than an "invention" per se - the Internet and the website already existed long before then. Due to its extreme vagueness - and, in the modern day, encouragement of WP:CRYSTALBALL to decide what counts as "historic" (the MRNA vaccine has had a major effect in recent times, but we have no clue if it will just be a historical footnote to be replaced by some future form of nanomedicine that renders it obsolete, or as something that endures for hundreds of years as the ultimate form of vaccination) it is not an encyclopedic list. The previous AfD was essentially closed procedurally and didn't discuss the article on the merits of its content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any issues of subjectivity or appropriateness are easily resolved with sources. (I will work on that in a bit). Rublamb (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for historic vagueness (though definitely not roller skates) and for WP:SALAT (being far too broad). However, a cutoff point before the number of inventions exploded might be manageable (up to the Iron Age maybe?). A lot of work has gone into this list, and I'd hate to see it go completely to waste. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After working on it today, this list is too long for functionality. Considering your suggestion, it should be split into a series of articles on historic periods. I suggest going through the 20th century. Rublamb (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These types of articles only increase workload. Azuredivay (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a good enough reason for deletion; you can't just say something is too much work. You could however say something is a POV fork, or too long, or unnecessary and reference one of those rules AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic pretty straightforwardly meets WP:NLIST imo. List criteria could simply be tightened to clear up any WP:SALAT or WP:CRYSTALBALL worries (eg restrict to pre-21st century, require two or more sources labelling something a historic invention, so on). And subjectivity of the historic invention label doesn't seem like a problem if we require the label to be applied by reliable sources for inclusion in the list. So, both of the nom rationales can be addressed by fixing the list, in which case I don't see how this list is deletion-worthy at all. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. As there are 645 footnotes, a source assessment table isn't realistic but additional analysis of the quality and relevance of the sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Instead of just deleting the article, why don't we just divide it so all sections are articles? Also, I don't know if there are more inventions made today than yesterday, and if there were more inventions made this year or last year. I'd prefer for the Timeline of historic inventions to be a list. Gabriel120YT (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doing a source analysis of every source that is some kind of list of inventions.
Source assessment table prepared by User:AnonymousScholar49
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    this source is a scammy looking financial site; even if it is reliable for finance, it's not reliable for this.   Sure? I guess? It's a list that has reasons. ✘ No
    USA Today is a reliable source, but this seems like a "X Crazy Things" type blog post   It's in USA Today i guess ✘ No
    Scholarly book published by Johns Hopkins Press   This book is basically a catalogue of big inventions ✔ Yes
  Independent author ~ This author seemed to write books aimed at children, but this one seems well referenced and reliable.   yes this book is about inventions ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Again, this is just a few of the sources that are some kind of list of inventions. Many of the other 600 sources seem reliable, with books, articles in reliable sources; most of them make an argument as to why a specific invention is notable or it's history. These sources in the table are just ok, with the exception of the two books. I guess it proves that there is precedent and verifiability for a list of inventions. This doesn't fall within the rules but there are more subjective articles like Lists of unusual deaths, and as stated previously this article gets a lot of views. I have not made a decision yet, but I'm leaning towards keep. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's one more scholarly book I forgot to add -- https://www.google.com/books/edition/Groundbreaking_Scientific_Experiments_In/ZQDDEAAAQBAJ?hl=en AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other existing sources to consider:
Additional sources that could be used to improve or support the article:
  • Wei, James. (2012) Great Inventions that Changed the World. Wiley-AIChE. ISBN 978-0470768174
  • Dulken, Stephen van. (2000) Inventing the 20th Century : 100 Inventions That Shaped the World. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 9780814788080
  • Philibin, Tom. (2005) The 100 Greatest Inventions df All Time: A Ranking Past and Present. Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0806524047
  • Johnson, Stephen. (2015) How We Got to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World. Riverhead Books. ISBN 978-1594633935
  • Al-Hassani, Salim T. S. (2012). 1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization: Official Companion to the 1001 Inventions Exhibition. National Geographic. ISBN 978-1426209345
  • James, Peter and Thorpe, Nick. (1995). Ancient Inventions. New York: Ballentine. ISBN 978-0345401021
  • Breverton, Terry. (2019). Breverton's Encyclopedia of Inventions : A Compendium of Technological Leaps, Groundbreaking Discoveries, and Scientific Breakthroughs. Lyons Press. ISBN 9781493045419
  • Routledge, Robert. (1989) Discoveries and Inventions of the 19th Century. Crescent. ISBN 9780517686348
  • Fagan, Brian M. (2004) The Seventy Great Inventions of the Ancient World. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 9780500051306
Based on the number and publishers, this should be enough to document the notability of the topic. Rublamb (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking at the comments above (thanks, all) it is clear that this is a well-established, and popular, topic both outside of and on Wikipedia. Concerns about sources and such can be addressed over time as with any article. A merge proposal which identified appropriate pages on the topic broken down by era might be worth consideration. Short of that, deletion would lose a great deal of information which is of interest, and not available elsewhere on the site. John_Abbe (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to Rublamb for finding even more sources, and based on that and my source analysis above, there is clearly precedent in third party reliable sources for a list like this. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source assessment is appreciated, and this does need work, but I reiterate given the number of views this has, its a highly desired topic and should be kept. Metallurgist (talk) 01:55, 16 August 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.
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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ViaBTC

ViaBTC (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 coverage is not from reliable sources: see WP:COINDESK, WP:INVESTOPEDIA, Cointelegraph. Fails WP:SIRS. JBchrch talk 15:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: examining the sources:
  • Cryptocurrency-centric sources are disallowed by WP:NCRYPTO: hashrateindex.com, Bitcoin News, CCN.com, Bitcoinist.com, bitcoinmagazine.com
  • Press releases from Business Wire are not independent.
  • Bloomberg source is trivial coverage, with a brief mention.
  • Coverage of the Bitcoin halving from FinanceFeeds, Investing News Network is trivial coverage that does not describe ViaBTC directly and in detail.
  • TheStreet is an interview of a ViaBTC employee without significant coverage of the company.
  • SCMP is also insignificant, one-sentence coverage.
— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:36, 16 August 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.
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 Bruker. due to consensus that the sourcing is insufficient to support a standalone Star Mississippi 01:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy Biosciences

Canopy Biosciences (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 establishment of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Merge and Redirect to Bruker. The Canopy article has only one non-press release or company site source (#10). The acquisition announcement in the Bruker article is even a press release. I looked for more independent coverage and could only find this. This one has no author and uses the press release announcement quote. If anyone has more time to look and can find other reliable sources to move the needle, please add them. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Changing my vote to weak keep, based on the below media sources. As I understand it, scholarly papers require high citation counts to be themselves notable, unless there's media coverage of them. I looked up the first one and the count is 29, ok but not great. The others might be higher if you want to look. You can post a connected edit request to have the media sources added to replace the poor current sourcing. See Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests for more info. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or strong redirect to Bruker company. I feel like there are sources not yet mentinoed here. but the redirect option is also good. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a conflict of interest, so I will not edit the article directly. However, I would like to point out several independent, reliable secondary sources that may have been overlooked and could help establish notability per WP:GNG:
Independent coverage:
Published research using the company's ChipCytometry technology:
I hope these independent sources and scientific literature aid editors reviewing the deletion discussion; they demonstrate sustained notability and adoption beyond company‑generated materials. If article is kept, I would request another editor incorporate these updated references. MolBioByte (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The independent sources provided above (especially the 4th) by the editor with a WP:COI seem adequately non-trivial. AFAIK, the Yahoo piece has information not available in other articles with independence issues. WP:SUSTAINED (as the policy notes) does not mean that a short burst of reliable secondary sources cannot establish permanent notability. Sam0fc (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bruker as per WP:ATD. The topic of this article is the company, not their products, 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. We have a number of sources above and one flaw in the reasoning above is that the editor is focussed on whether the source is an "indepdendent, realiable secondary source" but does not appear to have considered the *content* of the articles, and whether it meets the criteria for "independent content". Similarly, the "published research" needs to provide in-depth independent content about the *company* but instead appears to showcase the novel step involved in their technology. Notability is not inherited - if the company is notable then we expect to find sources that meet the criteria for notability - that is, articles that discuss the company. I've provided an analysis below:
Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent Content? In-depth? Overall establishes notability per NCORP
"Why fast-growing Canopy Biosciences isn't your typical biotech startup — by design". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   It relies entirely on information provided in an interview with a Sr. VP and their CEO. There is no "independent content" whatsoever and reads like an advertorial.  
"Canopy Biosciences Expands into 'Multi-Omics' Company with Zellkraftwerk Acquisition". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   This (and lots of other sources) simple regurgitates this PR announcement of the same day.  
"Canopy Biosciences Acquired by Bruker After 4 Years As BioGenerator Incubated Startup". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   Like the earlier source, this one (as well as lots of others) regurgitates earlier announcements from connected parties about the acquisition, such as this and this. No independent content.  
"Bruker's Buyout of Canopy Biosciences Enhances Portfolio". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   From Zack's Equity Research but fails ORGIND for the same reasons as others which primarily repeat announcements. If this was a research report from Zack's, an analyst might have provided some context for the acquisition but here, statements such as the acquisition will "enable Bruker to enhance its own portfolio" and the global presence "will be beneficial for both the companies" only repeats the PR and is not Zack's independent content.  
As mentioned earlier, none of the "published research" provides in-depth independent content about the company. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 14:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Numerically, more editors are making arguments to Keep but I've learned over 5 years that HighKing is more often correct in his assessments than wrong.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 14 August 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.
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 23:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Local

Sim Local (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)

Covered mostly in WP:TRADES. This article is probably the best about them but it lacks in-depth analysis and is full of quotes like "Whelan said", "he said" or regurgitated press release information. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supported by multiple high-quality, independent sources. The company is notable both in terms of media coverage and industry impact, and the current article includes properly cited, verifiable information. It should not be deleted.
We removed sections that looked like advertising and performed extensive rewrites. Happy to make further improvements if needed. Thanks Dylan909 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is an unbolded Keep here so Soft deletion is not possible. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to me that there's a fairly clear case of WP:NOTHERE in the sense that the content appears to be on Wikipedia for marketing purposes. I think it is unlikely that the company meets WP:NCORP but this could change in the future. Seems like the best option might be to wait until an uninvolved non-COI comes to work on a page. JMWt (talk) 07:10, 14 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=1306191138"