- 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Neurotechnology UAB
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Neurotechnology UAB ( | 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)
Refbombed to death (over 50 references for this semi-stub, 11 references for a single event), highly promotional article for a company that is not notable per WP:NCORP. I'd have fancied a G11 but thought AfD safer. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Lithuania. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @ Alexandermcnabb, thank you for reviewing this page, and for exercising an AfD rather than G11. Following your feedback, I have reviewed the use of references and removed product information as this was too promotional. Thanks for your help in keeping wiki a great source of information for all, have a nice day :) Sdcjeff ( talk) 12:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: (Original Author)
- The article has been comprehensively rewritten, to give more detail about what makes the company notable (provider of biometrics for national elections, and the largest biometric ID scheme in the world). Feedback taken on board regarding refbombing, will keep in mind for future edits. @ Alexandermcnabb please could you re-review the page when you are able to? Thank you ~~~~ Sdcjeff ( talk) 11:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This company is notable per noms. It's a scientific research company and featured in scientific journals and magazine. Kasar Wuya ( talk) 15:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Can you point to just one or two specific references, be they scientific journals or magazines or otherwise, that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability, particularly with emphasis on in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing ++ 19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't look like we have the material to meet the
necessary standard for articles on corporations here. The only bit that isn't fluff and/or cruft (
Researchers ... used genetic algorithms to create synethetic [sic] irises to fool the image similarity systems used in the VeriEye iris recognition system...
) would be better off rewritten in an article about the technology, like biometrics or an offshoot thereof. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)- Comment (COI: original author) Many of the sources found were in their native Lithuanian or other languages, such as this French Le Soir article about the Congo elections which sadly I do not understand well enough to judge whether they are puff press releases or suitable sources. In terms of English sources, whilst many of the more notable references such as the Guardian only briefly mention the company and product, I would judge these to represent greater than trivial coverage from these sources. If the decision is not currently notable, I would appreciate draftying and appealing to Lithuanian speaking editors to improve sourcing of notability. Kind regards Sdcjeff ( talk) 15:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete None of the references provide in-depth independent content about the company and therefore this topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Neurotechnology UAB
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Neurotechnology UAB ( | 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)
Refbombed to death (over 50 references for this semi-stub, 11 references for a single event), highly promotional article for a company that is not notable per WP:NCORP. I'd have fancied a G11 but thought AfD safer. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Lithuania. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @ Alexandermcnabb, thank you for reviewing this page, and for exercising an AfD rather than G11. Following your feedback, I have reviewed the use of references and removed product information as this was too promotional. Thanks for your help in keeping wiki a great source of information for all, have a nice day :) Sdcjeff ( talk) 12:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: (Original Author)
- The article has been comprehensively rewritten, to give more detail about what makes the company notable (provider of biometrics for national elections, and the largest biometric ID scheme in the world). Feedback taken on board regarding refbombing, will keep in mind for future edits. @ Alexandermcnabb please could you re-review the page when you are able to? Thank you ~~~~ Sdcjeff ( talk) 11:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This company is notable per noms. It's a scientific research company and featured in scientific journals and magazine. Kasar Wuya ( talk) 15:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Can you point to just one or two specific references, be they scientific journals or magazines or otherwise, that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability, particularly with emphasis on in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing ++ 19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't look like we have the material to meet the
necessary standard for articles on corporations here. The only bit that isn't fluff and/or cruft (
Researchers ... used genetic algorithms to create synethetic [sic] irises to fool the image similarity systems used in the VeriEye iris recognition system...
) would be better off rewritten in an article about the technology, like biometrics or an offshoot thereof. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)- Comment (COI: original author) Many of the sources found were in their native Lithuanian or other languages, such as this French Le Soir article about the Congo elections which sadly I do not understand well enough to judge whether they are puff press releases or suitable sources. In terms of English sources, whilst many of the more notable references such as the Guardian only briefly mention the company and product, I would judge these to represent greater than trivial coverage from these sources. If the decision is not currently notable, I would appreciate draftying and appealing to Lithuanian speaking editors to improve sourcing of notability. Kind regards Sdcjeff ( talk) 15:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete None of the references provide in-depth independent content about the company and therefore this topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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.