Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluefield 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bluefield Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-prodded. New 2017 startup. Coverage in article doesn't show SIGCOV and definitely not CORPDEPTH. While this startup sounds like a "cool concept" and might definitely be notable in the future, at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON. Most of the sources in the article do not advance notability (own website, name mention in conferences, Cruchbase). I think Medium doesn't count as RS, but they do have a paragraph -. We do have 1 good Bloomberg piece - focused on the company (this was repeated (syndicate?) in Portuguese -  and summarized in sfgate - ). In short - essentially we have one Bloomberg article, which would not be enough for SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

https://ieeetv.ieee.org/ieeetv-specials/ieee-entrepreneurship-hello-tomorrow-global-summit-bluefield-tech&source=gmail&ust=1516323684934000&usg=AFQjCNFvfJELQRh067YTUQw5mUdY2IHerw It is something the public and Wikipedia readers would benefit from having one article which consolidate all the info on the company and even raise critical reviews on what the company is doing. We got to start somewhere. I suggest adding more info from the public coverage and evaluations on the company. Thank you for putting thought into this Infofuture (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) And this: https://medium.com/@hugh_w_forrest/sxsw-startups-bluefield-fights-methane-7cbf657b8b60  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Bloomberg piece just one short piece that doesn't say too much about the company Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is worth adding more content to the article, for example there are several tech bloggers who covered the company. This article is the beginning and set the structure to allow it to further evolve. Also, the investors of this company include Yahoo's founder and the widow of Steve Jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep there do seem to be a couple of substantial writings on the topic eg the Shu's green patch. But because of cooperation with company may not be totally independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't Shu's green patch a WP:BLOGS and hence not a RS? Or is the author (Shu Das) known as an expert?Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep also http://strategy-iot.com/bluefield-global-methane-gas-detection-from-space/ from a tech blogger. The point is that the company exists. It is a prove of commercial initiative to monitor greenhouse gases emitters using satellites. It's got a business model, team, and 3rd party recognition.
 * More content has been added. What's your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources added are either not reliable/independent or not about the company (e.g. a NASA page from 1995). The closest to being relevant is a medium.com interview with the company with the poster being part of the SXSW accelerator event - which does not establish notability. Basically we have a startup who was covered once in Bloomberg.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Icewhiz. The startup was covered by Bloomberg, and also by very selective technology events and organizations. SPIE, IEEE, Energy New Venture (sponsored by Shell), World Bank, Coalition for agriculture emissions, satellite tech organizations. Do we need to go to the extreme of deleting it? What other options do we have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added reference from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2017/04/04/how-to-win-big-investing-in-the-space-2-0-boom/2/#3950fcd82f3d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Passing mention - in list + 1 sentence. In addition this by a Forbed contributor, not staff, and there are some issues with the Forbes site being used to host NEWSBLOGS.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was ready to hate this piece, guessing it was spam for a new startup. It's actually kind of interesting and does indeed seem to meet GNG. See THIS, for example, as one piece of independently published, presumably reliable, substantial coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I see a mention of Bluefield here as well: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ICYMI-From-Snap-Maps-to-Wild-Wings-to-smart-12495299.php
 * Delete This topic falls well short of our standards for notability. There are no indications of notability for this topic within the article, it is essentially a startup that has some seed funding and has participated in some startup competitions. The references appear to be from reliable sources (as is usual) but fail the other criteria for establishing notability. Run-of-the-mill business listings in Crunchbase and Bloomberg fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles that rely on company announcements and press releases fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles that rely extensively on "fascinating conversations", "IEEE Entrepreneurship chats", quotations and interviews fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Articles that are mere mentions-in-passing such as the Forbes reference fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, none of the references pass the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious spam excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. The question of the GNG is irrelevant as WP:N makes it clear that a failure of NOT means that something does not pass the notability guideline. Since this falls outside of the scope of Wikipedia (as defined by NOT and WP:5P), the evaluation of the sourcing is a secondary question. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it has a neutral point of view and reference to 3rd party information. Also, this is just the very early stage of this article, and it will be evolving but needs to start somewhere so others can contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck your bolded !vote as you've already had one bold keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2018 (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.