Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projexity

Projexity

Projexity (edit | 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)

nn dead business - Altenmann >talk 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1. You have to actually say why it should be deleted, not just cite the notability guideline.

2. This article actually has a few decent sources, and a few more can be found by googling:

- https://www.blogto.com/tech/2013/04/new_website_aims_to_foster_city_building_in_toronto/, a full article on it

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170309094042/http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2013/04/04/crowd-sourcing/, a CBC interview

- https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/06/projexity-platform-grassroots-urban-initiatives.16288, an interview article with a few paragraphs of exposition (independent) that can be used

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170613192928/https://gridphilly.com/grid-magazine/2013/4/9/a-blossoming-vision-for-south-philly-high-school.html, a description of its use in a school

Pretty sure this satisfies notability, based on the sources that are already there and a google search. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also https://web.archive.org/web/20210802231748/https://torontoist.com/2013/07/kensington-market-tries-to-crowdfund-its-fight-against-riocan-and-walmart/, which is a pretty good one Mrfoogles (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the project died decade ago. - Altenmann >talk

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an inactive topic is not a valid deletion reason. The same logic could lead to deletion of all our history-related articles. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find [1], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's nothing close to a
  WP:NCORP pass in the sources brought up in this AfD, and the article's current state is mostly branding language. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]