Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Texas. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Texas|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Texas. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Texas

NUU mobile

AfDs for this article:

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

This was recently restored by an admin after a soft deletion at the previous AFD. Immediately afterwards it was again tagged as G4, but that was declined since the process delete was soft. A few minutes later A7 and G11 tags were applied, and I deleted based on those. Since the page creator has contacted the last tagger about restoration, I've done so, but am now calling this second AFD. This is NOT a procedural nomination; IMHO the page doesn't tell us anything significant about the company except it's selling phones. BusterD (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BusterD, please tell me what I need to do. I'm not trying to cause any trouble. I can remove those tags. Garyplso (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can provide an answer for your question which will please you. Page creators are up against several guardrails the community has established in order to prevent utter chaos. Our five pillars set forth an expectation 1P) we are an encyclopedia, not a routine listing of electronics sellers, 2P) in our articles we take a neutral point of view, so we're not here to improve electronics sales, 3P) Wikipedia articles are free content, so anyone can write them, so anyone can change them later, 4P) wikipedians treat each other with respect and civility, even when rules are broken, and 5P) we have no set rules, but as a community we establish polices and guidelines to keep our project moving forward. In the case of article space we require a subject establish WP:Notability and WP:Verifiablity policies through demonstration of multiple reliable, indepth sources independent of (and directly detail) the subject. In the case of articles about companies, we have additional organization and company guidelines which prevent Wikipedia from becoming Yelp or LinkedIn. So the bar is high for such companies. IMHO, too high for the subject under discussion. This somewhat-adversarial articles for deletion discussion is where the pagecreator and supporters can provide evidence of the available sources. Often a paid- or otherwise connected author has access to a company clipping file, or is aware of sources which would qualify. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterDThanks for your response. I'm working to improve it. Garyplso (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the products might be notable, but the company isn't. There's probably enough WP:PRODUCTREV for a "reception" section to be filled out, at which point the article becomes encyclopedic. tech radar, PCMag, Digital trends (that one gives a 504 for me but it looks like it at least was significant coverage), a little bit at verge (not significant coverage though), tech radar again, PCMag again, Tom's guide. None of the current sources contribute anything, except maybe this, which might or might not be reliable (I haven't really investigated it). However, all the reliable sources I found are reviewing the company's products rather than the company itself, so this article fails WP:INHERITORG. I'm not sure whether Tracxn or pitchbook are reliable but they seem to fall under WP:CORPTRIV. TL;DR: notability is not inherited from the company's products. lp0 on fire () 14:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lp0 on fire Thanks for your insights. Rather than focusing on the products, will just focus on the company itself. Thanks for your suggestion about pitchbook. Garyplso (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious about the notability of the products, which would otherwise rise to a CCS for the company (i.e. in general, using the rule of thumb N -> CCS and CCS -> nothing for entities one step removed, the information on the products is not sufficient to avert an A7). In my opinion, the coverage shown in this discussion and the previous iteration of the article demonstrate only CCS for the products, and not notability. I am thus inclined to endorse the deletion of the article via our CSD rather than a full AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Duckworth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. The only references in the article are either primary to clubs the subject played for or are routine signing announcements, and I couldn't find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Bernal

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

No real claim to notability, no sourcing found about her work on TV to establish notability. PROD challenged, so we're here. Star Mississippi 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and News media. Star Mississippi 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a before finds zero independent significant coverage of her, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD proposer. No coverage of her specifically other than routine announcements. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sign of notability per WP:GNG – not sure what special notability guideline might apply to news correspondents, but neither WP:ENT nor WP:NJOURNALIST is met. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Florida, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with all the above, these are standard announcements for a TV journalist & nothing to indicate she's independently notable in her own right. The reason given for creating the article/disputing PROD isn't sufficient. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any decent secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - admittedly original content. Also, there are only two independent sources, which is not enough for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ramsey

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Kept last time per WP:NFOOTBALL, even after 4 years, there has been no change in the situation. Svartner (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle F. Henry (Dermatologist)

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

Non-notable dermatologist. No reliable, significant, notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Health and fitness. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Practicing doctor/educator, I don't this much to distinguish this person from others in the field. Not indexed in Gscholar, doesn't appear to have a significant h-index. Appears PROMO or a CV. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Texas. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got my person from the WikiProject Women in Red. She is a distinguished dermatologist who has published over 30 peer-reivewed article and has made a major influence in skin-of-color work. She is also a clinical instructor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College where she teaches her practice to college students. She has also been featured in major media outlets such as Coveteur and self magazine. What do you suggest is missing in order for her to be "notable"? ~2025-37859-60 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage about her, not her simply offering ideas on things, or a simple listing of where the person works, what they've done over their career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, this should be moved to Michelle F. Henry (dermatologist) in keeping with usual naming conventions. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Oaktree. Svartner (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At least for a while. Created by a new student editor at Connecticut College. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AEXA

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There is a decent amount of local news coverage but that's not enough for NCORP. I would have restored the redirect to Agencia Espacial Mexicana, but there doesn't appear to be any mention of anything by that title there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Software, and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was, long ago, mention of "AEXA" as a possible acronym for Agencia Espacial Mexicana (hence the redirect), but mention of that was removed in June 2010 (and the agency ended up as "AEM" instead). This probably could have ended up at RfD long ago for that reason, but with the overriding with an article we're here instead. (While this can be construed as a contesting of the old redirect and opposing any restoration of it, at this time I have no opinion on the current article itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, a NASA and The Independent article etc. This technology was used successfully on the ISS, an important space milestone. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources are independent from the company, the Independent article's content on the company is entirely quotes from the company, and NASA is a business partner. The third point is irrelevant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sick and tired of people namedropping WP: GNG without actually checking whether the sources meet it. The NASA piece is not independent coverage of the company; AEXA collaborated with them. The Independent article provides only mentions AEXA once; it is not even close to significant coverage. And who told you that "used successfully on the ISS" is relevant to this discussion? This is a discussion about sourcing. Totally irrelevant rubbish. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find sufficient sourcing for the subject to meet WP: GNG in my WP: BEFORE. The existing sources are from entities that closely collaborated with the subject (e.g. NASA) or are trivial mentions (e.g. The Independent, Freethink). HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Adding a brief clarification in response to the concerns raised above regarding independence and significant coverage:

Beyond NASA and partner material, there is non-local, independent, secondary coverage of Aexa’s holoportation technology in both reputable news outlets and scholarly literature. In addition to ScienceAlert, The Independent, and Freethink, the strongest independent source is the peer-reviewed Acta Astronautica article:

Woodland, M. B. (2024). “Applications of extended reality in spaceflight for human space exploration.” Acta Astronautica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.10.021

This article is written entirely independently of Aexa and NASA, and it discusses holoportation and Aexa’s system within the broader scientific context of extended-reality technologies in human spaceflight. It is non-routine, non-local, and meets Wikipedia’s definition of significant secondary coverage. Peer-reviewed academic sources are explicitly acceptable under WP and satisfy the requirements of WP when they provide in-depth, analytical treatment of the subject—which this one does.

Taken together, the Acta Astronautica coverage and multiple independent news articles provide substantial evidence of notability under GNG. I agree that the article needs cleanup for tone and reduced reliance on primary material, and I am prepared to help with that. But the sourcing meets the policy threshold for retention. Fdodelap76 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using AI. Copying my comment from below:

That article doesn't even mention them, at all. It is also titled differently and in a different journal by different authors than that DOI. And the one you wanted to link doesn't mention them either! Are you using AI? Because I find it difficult to find a human making that mistake. Egregious source misrepresentation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @PARAKANYAAI'm not using AI; I'm not as familiar as you are to the Wikipedia system.

Here is the first one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772569323001032?via%3Dihub

I can add the abstract if needed.

Here is the second one: https://telehealthandmedicinetoday.com/index.php/journal/article/view/452

Thank you so much for your support @PARAKANYAA I'll be here in case I need to provide more information.

Have a blessed day! Fdodelap76 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fdodelap76 Then how did you manage to link one study that does not mention it, while describing it as another study, that also does not mention it?

I can read the article in full. It does not mention Aexa. The second one does not have a single sentence about Aexa. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAAthe article about telehealth, if you go to the section Holographic Teleportation in Space, after Quantum Communications says: Holographic teleportation is a type of capture that allows high-quality 3D models of people to be reconstructed, compressed, and transmitted live anywhere in realtime.4In October 2021, NASA flight surgeon Dr. Josef Schmid, industry partner Aexa Aerospace CEO Dr. Fernando De La Peña Llaca, and their teams were the first humans holographically teleported from Earth into space.

Let's work on thus together, I'm here my friend if I need to help you with something else, as I really value your time. Fdodelap76 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about holographical technology. It is an article about AEXA. AEXA does not inherit the notability of technology they work on, unless that sourcing is about AEXA. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, and I appreciate your patience. You are correct that the two sources I linked do not mention Aexa directly, my fault.

I will look again for sources that discuss Aexa itself in independent depth, and if none exist, I’m happy to help improve or adjust the article in line with policy. Thank you for guiding me through the process. Fdodelap76 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @PARAKANYAAhere are new independent sources that directly cover Aexa as a company your valuable consideration:

• **Houston Chronicle** – “There but not there: Aexa wants you to virtually teleport anywhere”

A full-length newspaper profile discussing Aexa’s origins, leadership, business development, and work with holographic communication systems. This is a major, reliable news outlet and provides non-trivial company-focused coverage.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texas-inc/article/There-but-not-there-Aexa-wants-you-to-15574933.php

• **KHOU 11 News** – “Houston company using holographic technology on the International Space Station”

Independent reporting from a local TV news station specifically about Aexa’s work, including interviews, context, and explanation of the company’s role.

https://www.khou.com/article/tech/science/houston-company-using-holographic-technology-international-space-station/285-0b67bb3d-1482-43c1-a268-36764bdd1f02

• **StrikeWerx (Air Force Global Strike Command innovation hub)** – reporting on Aexa Aerospace delivering new B-52 equipment for GSC

Provides independent industry-sector coverage of Aexa’s defense work, written by an external organization and not by the company itself.

https://www.strikewerx.com/aexa-aerospace-strikewerx-deliver-new-b-52-equipment-to-global-strike-command

• **BuiltIn** – List of Houston defense companies including Aexa

Independent tech-industry publication noting Aexa’s role in the region’s defense technology ecosystem.

https://builtin.com/articles/defense-companies-houston

Please let me know if this is good enough.

Thanks again for your time. Fdodelap76 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are using AI. Stop.

I addressed this before, the first two are local news, which per WP:NCORP does not count much.The next one is not independent as it is from a company that works with AEXA, and the fourth says written by AI, which makes it not reliable. Arguing with AI gets one nowhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third one STRIKEWERX is not a company, STRIKEWERX is an innovation arm of the AFGSC Office of the Chief Scientist.

STRIKEWERX is part of the Air Force Global Strike Command, here is the link:

https://www.strikewerx.com/who-we-are Fdodelap76 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAAhopefully my answer to STRIKEWERX helps.

Again thank you so much for your time. I found the following taht mentions Aexa in the contect and I'm not using AI.

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-surgeon-beamed-to-international-space-station-in-holoportation-world-first

https://www.space.com/hologram-doctor-space-station-nasa-astronauts

https://www.phoenix.edu/press-release/university-of-phoenix-alum-dr--de-la-pena-llaca-s-holoportation-.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/04/19/nasa-doctor-holoports-space-station-telemedicine/7366934001/

Per your prior comments, these sources are indpependent, not promotional, and provide non-trivial company mentions and are not local.

Looking forward for your very valuable feedback Fdodelap76 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:GNG/WP:NCORP: Multiple independent national sources...

Space.com analyzes AEXA's role: https://www.space.com/hologram-doctor-space-station-nasa-astronauts - "NASA...partner Aexa Aerospace" with context on innovation

USA Today covers company achievement:: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/04/19/nasa-doctor-holoports-space-station-telemedicine/7366934001/ USA Today

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-surgeon-beamed-to-international-space-station-in-holoportation-world-first Science Alert

https://www.phoenix.edu/press-release/university-of-phoenix-alum-dr--de-la-pena-llaca-s-holoportation-.html Phoenix University

These are non-local, beyond primaries/press releases per Wiki policy. Fdodelap76 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all these sources have the same problem, they are all non-independent, passing mentions, or press releases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's about Strikerwex? that one is the Air Force Global Strike Command. Is that considered as well non-independent @PARAKANYAA? Thank you for your guidance Fdodelap76 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a company that works with them writing about how they worked together, so non-independent. 'Aerospace, a company that provides solutions for training and operational support, has collaborated with STRIKEWERX, the innovation partner AFGSC and a division of the Cyber Innovation Center (CIC), to create new capabilities and increase efficiency for the Electronic Warfare Pressurizing Test Set (EWPTS).' PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PARAKANYAA for clarifying, I'm learning as we speak.

I understand your point about STRIKEWERX, since the article describes a collaboration with Aexa, it does not count as independent secondary coverage.

You are absolutely right, and I won’t rely on it for establishing notability.

At this point I’m focusing only on the fully independent sources (Houston Chronicle, Space.com, ScienceAlert, USA Today) that provide non-trivial coverage and mention Aexa’s role in the ISS holoportation milestone. Fdodelap76 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the above {{cait}} has replies from PARAKANYAA but since the comments from Fdodelap76 are all generated, collapsing the whole thread. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep - The article covers a notable, independently reported event, the 2021 holoportation on the ISS, which has been reported by NASA, and some news websites. This shows there is some significant coverage beyond routine press releases. However, the current version feels promotional and relies too much on company or partner sources. I suggest keeping the article but rewriting it in a neutral tone and replacing company-sourced material with independent coverage. SanneMonte (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responses are left uncollapsed on this one since they're fairly minimal. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't evidence that. We don't have any non-local sigcov. NASA is not independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - SanneMonte, you need to be more specific and on-topic if an admin is going to accept your opinion on this. You say "replace with independent coverage"--well, unless you can show that such coverage exists, what's there to do? And if you don't have that coverage, how can you argue the topic itself, the company, is notable? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just wanted to note that it's not actually necessary to reply to or call out LLM generated comments. One can simply {{cait}}/{{caib}} if they're obviously nonsensical. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
!strong keep per WP:GNG/NCORP: Space.com provides independent, non-trivial coverage of AEXA's custom software enabling first Earth-to-ISS holoportation: "NASA flight surgeon...and Aexa Aerospace CEO...used custom Aexa software" [1](https://www.space.com/hologram-doctor-space-station-nasa-astronauts). USA Today similarly details company role https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/04/19/nasa-doctor-holoports-space-station-telemedicine/7366934001/. Beyond routine/local. Article needs neutral rewrite post-AfD. Fdodelap76 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While some coverage is local to Texas, there are also national and international sources discussing Aexa’s holoportation work on the ISS and its mixed-reality systems in non-trivial depth. For example, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] provide independent discussion of Aexa’s role, context, and technology rather than merely passing mentions. Taken together, these appear to satisfy WP:GNG and therefore NCORP. ~2025-39122-26 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 1 is a press release, source 2 is a press release by a university about one of their students, source 3 is a press release, source 4 is their own website, source 5 is WP:DEPRECATED as per WP:CRUNCHBASE. None of these sources help whatsoever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the independent news coverage already cited (ScienceAlert, The Independent, Freethink), Aexa’s holoportation work is also discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific article published in Acta Astronautica:

Woodland, M. B. (2024). “Applications of extended reality in spaceflight for human space exploration.” Acta Astronautica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.10.021

This is a high-quality, independent, secondary academic source that analyzes extended-reality technologies in human spaceflight and includes Aexa’s holoportation system as a case example. Academic publications like this are considered strong evidence of notability under WP and WP, since they provide non-trivial, non-local, non-routine coverage of the subject in a broader scientific context.

Taken together, the peer-reviewed coverage and multiple independent news articles demonstrate that Aexa receives significant coverage in reliable sources, meeting GNG and supporting retention of the article with cleanup for tone where appropriate. ~2025-39122-26 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't even mention them, at all. It is also titled differently and in a different journal by different authors than that DOI. And the one you wanted to link doesn't mention them either! Are you using AI? Because I find it difficult to find a human making that mistake. Egregious source misrepresentation.

And the other sources you mention don't exist! PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
KDDM (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)