Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent Technologies


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Advent Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks like an advertisement. Corporate spam. fails WP:GNG Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete due to being a non-notable advert article that was created, and has been mainly edited, by COI editors. Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I request you to make a WP:BEFORE because I believe the article is salvageable. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a BEFORE. I wouldn't have voted otherwise. I don't have access to newspapers.com though. But it seema like most the time their coverage is trivial. That said, I'm willing to change my vote if the article is improved enough to warrant it. Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep the submission was accepted by me at AfC based on plenty of independent citations available on print media like this that can be accessed from newspapers.com. Pinging the submitter is they can improve it. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete References are a mix of profile pages (the majority), churnalism, and WP:MILL business news. How could it be possible for it to be accepted at Afc in that state? Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS.   scope_creep Talk  09:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasonings. Reads like an advertisement in various spots and probably hard to improve while keeping to WP:GNG. MagPlex (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please point out those advertisement spots? I have planned to improve it with proper citations. Thanks. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As well as the above points made by regarding sources throughout the article that fail the guidelines mentioned, the "Main Applications" section is what stood out to me at time of writing. On further reflection, it isn't terrible and does indeed inform on the company applications, but I still feel it reads a little like a general product list advertising what the applications are and what they do. It's informative, but perhaps too descriptive within the scope of the article. If you have citations that can show more notability, excellent. I'm definitely for improvement if so. I recommend reading up on WP:ORGCRIT before you implement them and improve the article. That's a good way to make sure the citations are relevant, significant and reliable. MagPlex (talk · contribs) 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , appreciate your suggestions and will try to improve if I can rescue it. Thanks. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I could help. Good luck. MagPlex (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Im not seeing the feature coverage in WP:RS that would take this across the WP:GNG line. If they ever do something notable I’m sure there will be real coverage and the page can then be created for real. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No idea how this article passed AfC seeing as how not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please check and  ? Both are independent sources having significant coverage. Thanks. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - other coverages I could find in reliable sources are:, , , , , etc. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus a few more:, , , , , , including several Google Scholar citations  and this. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Response Hi, I'll start with the first two you asked me to check. The first from tovima.gr dated 2013 discusses the company, its recent announcement of funding and then essentially "interviews" the CEO for the history of the company and its technology. There is no "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND) in the article and it clearly and obviously fails WP:ORGIND. The second reference from thebest.gr discusses a tour by the Greek PM of the company's labs and is a copy of this Press Release from the company a month previously. This also fails WP:ORGIND. Based on the two references you've put forward, you are not taking WP:NCORP guidelines (and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH sections) into proper consideration. The "test" is not for an article in a reliable source - NCORP guidelines are strict on which references may be used to establish notability which must provide in-depth information on the company and excludes material produced/provided by the company and their executives. A quick perusal of the remaining references demonstrate the same issues and also appear to fail NCORP guidelines. Ideally, coverage by a technology analyst will establish notability or investigation/opinion/analysis *of the company* (not the technology) provided by the author/journalist is required.  HighKing++ 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the book "Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications" by Detlef Stolten has some reviews on this subject. KartikeyaS  (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the company is merely mentioned in passing in that book. On page 28 the author discusses different types of Membrane Electrode Assemblies and the various manufacturers and mentions that this company recently started to offer MEAs that use a different membrane polymer. The book does not discuss the company at all, does not describe any products in detail and the book therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 12:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2020 (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.