M2Mi Corporation: A WP:BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT .  Could possibly see this being a redirect to OASIS (organization) .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Software ,  and California .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to OASIS (organization) : per nom.  I found some coverage from Google books and scholars but unfortunately none of them seem significant enough 94rain Talk 05:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Machine to machine : M2Mi is not mentioned in the OASIS (organization) article so it doesn't make sense to redirect it there but they are mentioned at Machine to machine regarding the partnership with NASA.  Pinging @ CNMall41 : and @ 94rain : for their thoughts about the target.  S0091 ( talk ) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk ) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct about OASIS.  I looked closer ant it appears M2Mi helped developed the OASIS standard MQTT .  That could also possiblty be a target after adding a mention of the company.  Either way is fine as long as this page is gone as I do not see it being independently notable. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also fine with delete.  S0091 ( talk ) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  There are two different Redirect target articles being proposed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  IABOT was able to add archived versions of two of the article's references.  When you are considering bringing an article with dead references to AfD, it is usually a good idea to run IABOT to try to salvage those references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  Normally I'd opt for a redirect, but this company is not *connected* with either of the suggested redirect targets - it was a research company that participated in projects, but still an entirely separate company.  There's also nothing to suggest it was influential in its field.  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify A quick google search shows this article can eventually become notable, and there may be enough secondary sources to do so now.  The way it currently is, it's not ready for mainspace.  DarmaniLink ( talk ), We need more information.  What did you find in the Google search that showed the topic might/can eventually become notable??  As it is, this comment is an empty ! vote with zero reasoning.  HighKing ++ 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [65] https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/machine-to-machine-intelligence-m2mi-corporation-the-most-advanced-and-secure-m2m-iot-platform-provider - from 2021 [66] https://appel.nasa.gov/2010/02/28/ao_2-4_f_ames-html/ - from 2010 Looking at their website, they also had some brief mentions in tech magazines for awards, AFAICT.  Unless there's something I overlooked, this could become notable.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both of those references are nothing more than company marketing.  Silicon Review is a "magazine" where company's boast about themselves and their offerings, not reliable.  This article doesn't even have a journalist mentioned.  The other reference is a joint Press Release.  Both of those references miserably fail WP:NCORP criteria.  We don't write article for companies that "could" become notable, the test is that they are notable now or have been in the past.  HighKing ++ 12:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with HighKing's assessment.   The Silicon Review is a trade publication and the article is a "profile" which is essentially what the company says about itself.   Same for APPEL;  it's a press release and contains statements about what they say they will do or what could happen (published in 2007, though the link uses 2010).  S0091 ( talk ) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Machine to machine , learn something new every day.  Good to know.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect