Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEye


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ClassifEye

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I felt this was a candidate for CSD:A7 but am not a tech person so decided to go AfD under non-notable company and non-notable technology (most references are from 10 years ago). Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Author's note: Notability began with a full article published a decade ago about the company's technology and benefit to India. An article about Haloid would not be something to delete, even if today people ask "please Xerox it" rather than please Haloid it. I added a "Benefits to poor" section to this Wiki stub, which now includes book citations. Pi314m (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Author observation: Wiki asks for contribtions, decries information being lost, and then . . . history gets deleted? A report posted to the U.S. Department of Justice, available here, says that nine companies in this space developed "contactless fingerprint technologies that are worth noting." The first two are now facing deletion from Wiki's servers. ClassifEye is listed first of the nine. The second is also HatNoted. The report notes both companies have closed. Is this like deleting history? I updated the ClassifEye article to point to the report. Pi314m (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (Author asks) Merge? i.e. Start an article named Contactless fingerprinting and use both the above article and runner up Pay By Touch, the top two in the Justice Department report, as examples/sections? Pi314m (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds like a good idea as the technology is likely notable (presuming that there is no existing WP article on this), and it could include discussion around the companies in the space.  I find myself recommending on AfD often that older articles, where the sources have dried up for a decade, it is better to consolidate articles around a main theme.  It is most likely as time goes on that such consolidated articles will survive, whereas individual weak cases will get deleted and and useful history/references lost. Britishfinance (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose a merge, as articles on technologies are not used to house information on the companies, as it's undue promotional details. I removed the corporate overviews for the two companies: diff. It's excessive and misplaced. Generally, corporate articles are merged if there's a parent company, not a technology article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Author comment. Got it. Without naming the companies (ClassifEye _and_ Pay By Touch), I described application of their technology: USA, England, India, Peru, Israel (section name: Applications). Pi314m (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (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.