Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 9: Difference between revisions

Purge server cache

Jan Karpíšek (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 current sourcing is very weak and does not show Wikipedia notability. I am not finding any RS showing this artist is notable. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Assessment table of current sourcing below WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNKLFNKL (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 meet at least one of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. SpragueThomson^talk 01:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keyzar Jewelry (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 of this company in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CDC MarketFirst (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 promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This is software seems has been through a few ownership changes from when it was a standalone company and clearly has been just a software package for the last 20 years. I recently updated the article to remove a lot of promotional material and clean it up. It appears mostly defunct, but seems to still be supported as legacy software package by its owner. Given the number of references, I believe it meets notability, if only from a historic perspective. Sargdub (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Interesting. If it were solely for that reason, I would be in favor of attempting to keep the article. User:Deathnotekll2 User:Deathnotekll2 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. However, at it’s currently written the article is unacceptable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. The software also contains many unsupported claims to its successes that can’t be completely verified by the sources it relies upon. Many of the links are broken or inaccessible – such as those from Reuters and Business Wire – rendering any dedicated verification difficult. It appears the software did exist and was successful, but the article would need to be written again (especially to obtain new versions of its sources). User:Deathnotekll2

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source assessment would be helpful here as we have very different opinions of the sources that exist in the article or provided in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovable (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)

Fails WP:NORG at present. Amigao (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:ORG/WP:GNG. See following news pieces: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also already getting mentioned in scholarly works even though it is a young company (granted passing mentions): [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 05:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to say that a previous article on this subject, albeit at a slightly different title, was deleted only a few weeks ago, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovable. Speaking of different titles, whether due to intentional titlegaming or not, this has gone round the houses: in addition to the current title and Lovable, there has been content at Lovable Labs, Draft:Lovable Labs Inc., Lovable (platform), and possibly elsewhere. —DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why this was recreated after a recent deletion. Existing coverage is largely routine business coverage + non-independent quoting of CEO/other tech executives. Beyond the Forbes article I don’t think the sources provided by 4meter4 meet requirements for WP:NORG and even the forbes article quotes heavily from an interview with the CEO.

• TechCrunch Not independent as it is is largely quotes from the CEO/other tech people without little to no independent analysis.
• BusinessInsider Not entirely independent as it relies overmuch on quotes from CEO, though there is some added thought about traffic to the app.
• bdtechtalks Is a blog post and not great for reliability/verifying independence.
• Bloomberg Paywalled, but the opening lines make it clear they’re using quotes from the CEO from an appearance on Bloomberg TV so not promising.
• euronews Mostly quotes company numbers + talks about routine business (funding rounds). No independent analysis.
• thenextweb Routine coverage of business growth with many quotes from CEO and not necessarily independent. Uncertain whether thenextweb is considered reliable either.
• Techcrunch 2 Only a passing mention as the article focuses on a different company (Anything)

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the links had pipes preventing them from working; I’ve removed those. —DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s transformative text and secondary analysis in many of these. It’s not all interviews, so I disagree with your source assessment as entirely failing WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I’d like to see more neutral assessment of sources provided and editor acknowledgement that a previous AFD was about a different subject with a similar name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

===Steve Lookner===

Steve Lookner (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)

Reason for nomination: The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO guidelines. There are no significant, independent, reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Most references are either IMDb (user-generated) or primary/self-published (e.g., YouTube videos). The claims of involvement in Seinfeld, Saturday Night Live, and other shows are unsourced or only supported by IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source per WP:IMDB. Without substantial third-party coverage, the subject does not appear to merit a standalone article. Recommend deletion.