Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supabase

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 14:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supabase

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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

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

This BaaS platform doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. There's no real in-depth coverage in independent, reliable media. Most of what's cited are press releases or basic funding announcements. This one [1] just reads like a promotional piece and the publisher itself doesn't look particularly notable or editorially independent. A quick Google search mostly turns up more of the same (blog posts and funding news). Nothing that really shows the platform is notable in the way Wikipedia defines it. Junbeesh (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. I was considering nominating this and the two related articles for deletion myself when I saw them in NPP. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There appears to be something there on Google Scholar. Madeleine (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The academic information about this is minimal, containing one citation to a thesis and one citation to a study that used it as a managed database. Basically nothing else, which is understandable for a startup like this. FalconK (talk) 23:37, 17 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.