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!} 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in education

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

Very likely AI generated, with manually added citations. User has uploaded AI generated text to multiple articles before. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sample text: "potential to revolutionize learning processes, personalize instruction, and improve educational outcomes...improve student engagement, provide customized learning experiences, and streamline administrative tasks." Oh boy, I just won LLM bingo. As for sources, references 4 and 7 are real, but 7 never mentions AI at all, making it a case of SYNTH. Reference 13 also looks legit, though I don't have access to the full text to check its relevance. The others I didn't check but don't trust. AI in education is obviously a notable concept, but if the author can't put in the effort to write the article themself, why should the rest of us put in the effort to clean it up? Delete and let someone who actually wants to write an article write the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all of the referenced articles and books exist, but it seems unlikely that the sources are actually being used and accurately reflect the text. For one, [12] is referencing a 112 page book, but doesn't have page numbers for this list of 6 vague bullet points. Recon rabbit 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made multiple LLM generated edits to articles, and has only added sources when they've been reverted, with no changes to the text. Sources are likely randomly picked from a cursory google search of random keywords. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be what happened here too. Cirations added later, seperately, and with no changes to the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_education&diff=1225283548&oldid=1225276997 Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, AI-generated slop with citations retroactively added but not necessarily supporting the text. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no way this AI-generated garbage can form the basis of a useful article. There's nothing worth keeping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is broadly accurate, although some subsections of "Applications" look redundant and the sourcing is pretty bad (notably as a result of writing the article backwards). It would probably be easier to make a good article from there by only deleting the most problematic content than from scratch. But since the consensus seems to be to delete the article, I have no problem with it. Alenoach (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being actively misleading to the reader and a detriment to the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recently editted WP:TNT to describe scenarios like this, where large portions/entire article is made of AI.

Better to start clean then try to double check every reference for hallucination. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:41, 28 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!} 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 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 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.