Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Technology. 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|Technology|~~~~}} 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 Technology. 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.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CougarTech

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

Not a notable group. A high school FIRST Robotics Competition team; no independent coverage in the article. [1] (a local weekly) was the best search result I could find. Covers multiple school districts, so neither is a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to suggest its notability. The existing two sources in the article are as good as minus zero and there are no sources elsewhere to improve it. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time; lacking WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable group, fails WP:NORG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:27, 29 July 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.

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 redirect‎ to Etisalat by e&. The suggested target article is actually a Redirect to this target article. Please check your suggested target articles, just don't type a name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Al Abdooli

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Available sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or WP:PRESSRELEASE-based news articles. The only example of independent WP:SIGCOV I found is here, and we would need multiple examples to clear WP:GNG. Not seeing a separate pass on WP:NBIO. If additional sources are found, please ping me to evaluate and reconsider. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As Dclemens1971 wrote above, there are some mentions, such as this one. They are mostly about his role in Etisalat though, so a merge with that article makes sense to me. --Alan Islas (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with a redirect but I don't think it makes sense to merge any substantial content (beyond what's already present there) from a BLP into an article about a corporation he was formerly affiliated with. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Etisalat, which appears to be notable, because the biography only appears to be notable via that company. Per dclemens, there's probably nothing else worth merging into it. Bestagon ⬡ 21:26, 11 August 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.

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 keep‎. A promotional tone used in an article for a notable subject should be fixed editorially. WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to rewriting a page about a topic that meets our notability guidelines. TNT is a relevant argument in a content dispute, but not a reason to use administrative tools. As for WP:SK3, a faulty nomination cannot be used to speedy-close an AfD once a valid deletion argument has been entered. Regardless, an inaccurate assessment of sources vis-à-vis GNG is not the same as "No accurate deletion rationale". SK3 aims to close AfDs with nominations such as, "We don't need a page about a geographer", not to summarily reject poor or lazy assessment of sources. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Flyvbjerg

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

GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Also note that this person is the subject of an extensive promotional campaign of citespam and other articles (see Making Social Science Matter on his book). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive for more info on the socks, including the creator of the biographical article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up the article a bit. Qflib (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Economics, Geography, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edits, I followed up with a few tweaks as well. Qflib (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of David Eppstein and XOR'easter, who has done an excellent rough cut on the worst of the cruft. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5 at least twice over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 23 July 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.

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoreHW

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wP:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 11 references, 8 are their own websites, and 2 are brief database type listings. That leaves only 1 possible GNG reference (#5 per 7/7/24 numbers) and it's behind a paywall. (A paywall does not preclude it from consideration, it just means that I was unable to review but at best it would mean only one) Wording follows this pattern, sounds like only self-description.

North8000 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article appears to be promotional and multiple sources go to the same page. Ternera (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPROMO and it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think to keep it and not to delete. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd expect at least some English language coverage of a semiconductor company. Brandon (talk) 04:14, 22 July 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

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

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [2][3], a one-paragraph entry at [4] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [5][6] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [7], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [8], [9] and this which I think is also a RS [10]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately weak delete. The DigitalCameraWorld source above is the only one that qualifies for a full unit of SIGCOV, while the rest don't quite meet the mark, even when combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - I don't think his channel has reached notability yet, no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draft - in addition to the sources provided by Oaktree b, I was able to find a mention in Consumer Reports [11] - but it is the exact type of "passing coverage" that does not impart notability. From what I can see the only source that imparts any notability is the Digital Camera World article, which covers a video by Alec in depth (rather than just mentioning it in passing - as the Verge, Consumer Reports, etc do). I would be interested in seeing the borderline The Physics Teacher coverage (just for curiosity) but I trust sdkb that it is borderline (the section of the journal that it's in - Websights - confirms that it's likely borderline). I have no opposition to moving to draft space or userspace if someone wants to "take care of it" for the chance further coverage is either found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:41, 30 July 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civic technology companies

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

Largely redundant of civic technology and dubious sources throughout. The list is largely non-notable organizations. Anything useful here could be merged into civic technology. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely redundant article and the list is stuffed full of things that fail notability. CoconutOctopus talk 06:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subjects of the list are themselves mostly non-notable and nothing that's not already covered at civic technology. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 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.

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 merge‎ to End-of-train device. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last vehicle board

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, Sri Lanka, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few sites describing why the last car in Indian trains has an X symbol: [12], [13], [14], but that doesn't make it a notable concept, since these are just quirky did-you-know sort of items. Analogy: I can find articles explaining why pencils are often painted yellow: [15], but that doesn't make Color of pencils a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with End-of-train device (as I suggested when deprodding), which is another technology with the same purpose (and likely there are others from different railways around the world). This isn't notable on it's own, but the broader concept is and the target article itself is possibly too narrow on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information is not with citations but it seem to be true and that can be merged. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into End-of-train device sounds reasonable - that article already describes two approaches. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into End-of-train device. Thank you, Thryduulf, for deprodding and suggesting! gidonb (talk) 23:31, 27 July 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.