Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 20 August 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobileX). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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 merge‎ to Infinity Ward#Game engines. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IW (game engine)

IW (game engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, lacking evidence of its importance or standalone notability. Many of the sources are trivial mentions in articles not about the engine, or unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Call of Duty; as the main technology behind the series, overlaps virtually completely. IgelRM (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Infinity Ward#Game engines seems a better target, there's already an existing section on the engine. --Mika1h (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Infinity Ward#Game engines - we already have a good starting point for the article, and besides all future installments of the franchise, including the upcoming BO7, would be built on IW anyway. Dusty Kelpie (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2025 (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. Previous creations were speedy deleted and had several years between, so the usual standards for WP:SALTing don't appear to be met. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vindicia

Vindicia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability under WP:NCORP, coverage consists of press releases and routine fundraising/acquisition announcements. I note that this article was speedy deleted twice before, and one of the previous creators (but not the latest creator) was blocked for promotion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permute instruction

Permute instruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TLDR: largely dupliate of existing Gather/scatter (vector addressing) article.

Specifics of this article:

  1. Appears to be largely similar to Gather/scatter (vector addressing) but with the editors unique and unsourced WP:OR
  2. Recreation of a previously deleted article [1]
  3. None of the concepts / explaination of the topic are cited in any way
  4. None of the inline references even reference the term "permute instructions" but only specific subsets
  5. Only one among many of the wiki-linked articles on this page previously had used the term "permute instruction" until this editor added that term to the linked page.
  6. The lead sentence cites an Intel document (page 5-356), and the cited page does not support any of the claims of the lead, instead that page about The FPCLASSPS instruction checks the packed single precision floating-point values -- which is unrelated to permute instructions -- furthermore, you cannot find the term "permute instructions" anywhere in that 5,000+ page document.

Admittedly there is some research that shows Permute instruction as a phrase referenced, but those articles seem to be referecning what is already covered in Gather/scatter article.

Looking at the hatnote added to Gather/scatter which links back to Permute instructions[2] the editor claims add disambiguation reference "Register Gather Scatter" is actually also known as a vector permute, however my research still returned "gather/scatter" related articles with no direct refernece to the term permute instructions.

When considering the existing, well sourced, MOS conforming article titled Gather/scatter (vector addressing) which seems to be about the exact same concept, there seems no reason to keep this unsourced variant.

Of marginal note, the editor who created this article has been INDEF, and one of the things brought up at ANI was the pervasive editing in these areas but failing WP:CIR and exhibiting WP:BIT. His arguments in article talk and edits to technical articles exhibit WP:OR instead of citing reliable sources, this article is a perfect example of it.

What I've observed at other articles, and what seems to be here, is that the editor has been engaged in expanding articles of miniscule differences that they believe to be significant and then begin to boldly fork articles in an unsourced or poorly sourced way. This might be the case here.

TiggerJay (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2025 (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.

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

Gene Hoffman (technology executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure promotional puff piece, likely generated by AI. The only good source here is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. Unfortunately, we have no room for any more brochures. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 OpenPOWER Foundation. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libre-SOC

Libre-SOC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Libre-SOC is effectively vaporware: a hardware project that was started in 2019, and as of 2024 as listed on the article and per its project designer, is "effectively terminated".[3] The designer, User:Lkcl is a COI editor who created the page. All on page references can be categorized as either being:

  1. primary sources (official website, press-releases, blogs from COI, directory listings, etc); or
  2. WP:NINI (a presentation given at OpenPOWER Foundation).

There is only one (presumably) independent source, a tech writer and programmer named Michael Larabel with the website phoronix.com which has written about this project a couple of times [4] [5][6]. However, given the ad-laden website, this would seem to fail as a reliable source, and lean more towards an unreliable blog. As a failed project that does not have any reliable sources, and the only non-primary reference is a blog news site from an individual editor, it is hard to establish notability here. TiggerJay (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2025 (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.

Pyjs

Pyjs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely sourced from primary sources, published by the primary software developer WP:COI (Luke Leighton, aka User: Lkcl). No indication of nobility from reliable, third-party sources. Seems there was only pre-release product version, with the most recent being 0.8.1a, all back in 2012.

Looking at the references, they all fall into the following categories:

  1. Primary source (5 of 6 ref are to the website of the project)
  2. A single listing on an external website about a presentation the software author is giving.

For transparency I recently removed the following "broken" reference links from the page: (diff)

  1. A link to a broken "google group" -- forums are not reliable sources for establishing notability.
  2. A link to a broken github page (a primary source anyways)
  3. A directory listing site at sourceforge, redirecting to the current project site
  4. A very broken archive.org link, no idea on the content, but no way to rescue it either, but based on the ref tag, it appears to be self-published content.

Looking at google search using the project website[7] shows nothing to establish notabiliity aside from it being a small open source project with no sigcov.

It does look like it was maybe slightly more known under its former name, Pyjamas. But after it was renamed to pyjs, there is no SIGCOV for this new name, making it perhaps a bad WP:NAMECHANGE.

It is clear that Pyjamas did exist and was used, and is known about -- it has been referenced in "directory style" listings - both small and large, however, WP:NINI applies here. What is at question is if there are any reliable, third-party sources talking about this project that make it notable aside from any other open-source project with authors who are interested in self-promotion.

There was a prior AfD at [[8]] that NAC closed as keep, although a fresh look at the arguments presented, and the number of non-qualifying votes (SPA, etc), makes the outcome questionable at least.

TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a developer who was using pyjamas back when, I'd like to add that there was some definite controversy involved in the project. It was an up-and-coming light-weight alternative to GWT and had real momentum before experiencing a "hostile fork", described by some as a hijack[1]. The infrastructure and project identity were taken over without the original lead developer’s consent, leading to a collapse of both the original and forked efforts. This dramatic turn of events is arguably the most historically significant aspect of the project, and one that deserves documentation. I strongly support keeping the article for historical and archival purposes, and would encourage expanding it with sourced details about the fork and its impact. From (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some very interesting backstory, and something I wasn't able to track down... A few follow-up questions, based on what you provided: (1) can you provide multiple reliable source reporting on the controversy; (2) does that mean that pyjs is a fork of Pyjammas -- and thus should not inherit the possible notability of the base code. It seems like Luke was trying to claim "ownership" of Pyjs, when it sounds like it wasn't so much of a rename, as rather someone else forked it, and move the project forward without him, but he is still trying to claim fame for it? Are their reliable sources to back up those claims? It is ironic that Luke appears to have suffered from this on his other projects like Libre-SOC and even some of that spilling over in his behavioral issues on here. It would seem that if Pyjs is a fork, and Pyjammas is really the notable project, perhaps it should be moved back to Pyjammas, and Pyjs be left only as a relatively small part of the history? TiggerJay (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @From - just checking to see if you have any reliable sources regarding those statements? Also as someone who used Pyjamas "back when" and hasn't contributed on Wikipedia for over 7 years, can you help me understand how you became aware of this discussion? Forgive the accusation tone, but it is just astonishing that you'd simply stumble into this. Thanks! TiggerJay (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IVC Data and Insights

IVC Data and Insights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject publishes data on VC/PE in Israel. However, both the sources cited in the article and the ones that can be found from a WP:BEFORE only cite the company's data, but they never focus on the company itself or expand on it. As such, the company fails WP:NORG. JBchrch talk 12:03, 16 August 2025 (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.

GR8 Tech

AfDs for this article:
GR8 Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFD recently closed by a blocked editor (who owns a series of accounts that were used for Keep discussions). AlanRider78 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging previous + current discussion participants @Gheus @Norlk @Amlikdi @Linkusyr @Chippla360 @Ramos1990 @AlanRider78 @Jungle archer Oreocooke (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. ✗plicit 00:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Wellbeing

Digital Wellbeing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Absolutiva 22:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 19 August 2025 (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 Bruker. due to consensus that the sourcing is insufficient to support a standalone Star Mississippi 01:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy Biosciences

Canopy Biosciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No establishment of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Merge and Redirect to Bruker. The Canopy article has only one non-press release or company site source (#10). The acquisition announcement in the Bruker article is even a press release. I looked for more independent coverage and could only find this. This one has no author and uses the press release announcement quote. If anyone has more time to look and can find other reliable sources to move the needle, please add them. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Changing my vote to weak keep, based on the below media sources. As I understand it, scholarly papers require high citation counts to be themselves notable, unless there's media coverage of them. I looked up the first one and the count is 29, ok but not great. The others might be higher if you want to look. You can post a connected edit request to have the media sources added to replace the poor current sourcing. See Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests for more info. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or strong redirect to Bruker company. I feel like there are sources not yet mentinoed here. but the redirect option is also good. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a conflict of interest, so I will not edit the article directly. However, I would like to point out several independent, reliable secondary sources that may have been overlooked and could help establish notability per WP:GNG:
Independent coverage:
Published research using the company's ChipCytometry technology:
I hope these independent sources and scientific literature aid editors reviewing the deletion discussion; they demonstrate sustained notability and adoption beyond company‑generated materials. If article is kept, I would request another editor incorporate these updated references. MolBioByte (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The independent sources provided above (especially the 4th) by the editor with a WP:COI seem adequately non-trivial. AFAIK, the Yahoo piece has information not available in other articles with independence issues. WP:SUSTAINED (as the policy notes) does not mean that a short burst of reliable secondary sources cannot establish permanent notability. Sam0fc (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bruker as per WP:ATD. The topic of this article is the company, not their products, 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. We have a number of sources above and one flaw in the reasoning above is that the editor is focussed on whether the source is an "indepdendent, realiable secondary source" but does not appear to have considered the *content* of the articles, and whether it meets the criteria for "independent content". Similarly, the "published research" needs to provide in-depth independent content about the *company* but instead appears to showcase the novel step involved in their technology. Notability is not inherited - if the company is notable then we expect to find sources that meet the criteria for notability - that is, articles that discuss the company. I've provided an analysis below:
Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent Content? In-depth? Overall establishes notability per NCORP
"Why fast-growing Canopy Biosciences isn't your typical biotech startup — by design". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   It relies entirely on information provided in an interview with a Sr. VP and their CEO. There is no "independent content" whatsoever and reads like an advertorial.  
"Canopy Biosciences Expands into 'Multi-Omics' Company with Zellkraftwerk Acquisition". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   This (and lots of other sources) simple regurgitates this PR announcement of the same day.  
"Canopy Biosciences Acquired by Bruker After 4 Years As BioGenerator Incubated Startup". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   Like the earlier source, this one (as well as lots of others) regurgitates earlier announcements from connected parties about the acquisition, such as this and this. No independent content.  
"Bruker's Buyout of Canopy Biosciences Enhances Portfolio". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.
   From Zack's Equity Research but fails ORGIND for the same reasons as others which primarily repeat announcements. If this was a research report from Zack's, an analyst might have provided some context for the acquisition but here, statements such as the acquisition will "enable Bruker to enhance its own portfolio" and the global presence "will be beneficial for both the companies" only repeats the PR and is not Zack's independent content.  
As mentioned earlier, none of the "published research" provides in-depth independent content about the company. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 14:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Numerically, more editors are making arguments to Keep but I've learned over 5 years that HighKing is more often correct in his assessments than wrong.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 14 August 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=1306856968"