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. Seems like we don't have evidence of WP:N being met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClassifEYE

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable brand/product/technology. References are either non-independent or are niche publications or just mention ClassifEYE is passing. Maybe there is some value in a general article about the technology used in Poultry processing, but this particular branded technology doesn't meet notability guidelines for its own article. This page was previously deleted recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEye. Peacock (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPRODUCT, may be promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also salt it since it seems it has been deleted with similar contents in the past. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL NOTE: The comment about "recently deleted" shows that someone is not reading the articles with an eye for not losing stuff - the "alas" comment I saw somewhere on Wiki. Both products are about artificially "seeing" - that's what they have in common. The deleted article was about "Contactless fingerprinting technology" - to help prevent loss of life in airport situations, and a USA .gov site wrote

in 30 pages what I had summarized as

Although it ranks facial recognition and iris recognition ahead of contactless fingerprint identification, it is the fingerprint that ranks highest of the three for high-security situations.

The ClassifEYE is about feeding people - I even added re how it helps produce Hallal chicken at lower cost (I keep kosher, and I know about prices for special processing).

also please note the article's (sourced) "By 2013, ClassifEYE was already listed as Prior art

ClassifEYE (subject of this nomination) is not the "recently deleted" ClassifEye .. (different technologies, by different companies, in different countries) Pi314m (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regarding the poultry inspection product (from Baader Linco) that is the subject of the present article, I don't see its mention in the Korean patent text as conferring notability, nor does the trademark listing, or a brief mention of the equipment being installed in a new plant. Searches on the product name (and also variously using Baader and Linco) are not identifying sources meeting WP:PRODUCTREV. Overall, I don't see WP:GNG notability being demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.