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

MSI Claw A8

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

Notability concerns. Written like an ad without demonstrating much independent notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. [1] [2][3][4] all point to standalone notability for the device, and while it's slightly on the edge of WP:TOOSOON, there is no indication that its coverage will diminish in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: this article should be merged with “MSI Claw A1M” under common name “Msi Claw”

GonzalezRio (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the potential rather than current state of the article, I see the possibility of both pages being fully fleshed out. I don't think a WP:OVERLAP is there, as they are entirely different systems. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 23 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) 13:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coforge

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

All the references are not of reliable coverage as they are WP MILL, only covering single routine fund raising or acquiring events. Fails NCORP Jazzbanditto (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Uttar Pradesh, and New Jersey. jolielover♥talk 11:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTED as the company has received in-depth coverage in multiple analyst reports: [5] [6] [7]. Nominator, please see WP:NEXIST before sending any more articles to AfD. Yuvaank (talk) 20:59, 26 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!} 23:09, 29 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 redirect‎ to Clay Dreslough with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Mogul

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

Lack of sources that prove notability. Basically it only currently appears notable for designing a couple of sports games. Specifically Baseball Mogul, Masters of the Gridiron (No article of it yet), Football Mogul and Baseball Mogul Online. As an alternative for deletion, an option could be merging the content from the articles of the games it has made into this one. If that is bad, maybe just delete? This feels like a tossup... Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Business, Sports, Baseball, Football, Technology, and United States of America. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three sources given are the company's website, and two links about the game Baseball Mogul. The gamespot link doesn't have anything significant on it (here's what I got on the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20210830220556/https://www.gamespot.com/games/baseball-mogul-2007/news/), the gamershell link says that Baseball Mogul was the best selling PC baseball game for two years in a row (https://web.archive.org/web/20080207062631/https://gamershell.com/companies/sports_mogul/374303.html). The second article could be added to the Baseball Mogul article. Per WP:PRODUCT, this article could be merged into Baseball Mogul (though that article has mostly dependent coverage). I've proposed Football Mogul for deletion, since it has only dependent coverage or insignificant coverage from IGN and Gamespot. Truthnope (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sourcing fails WP:NCORP and regardless has nothing to say about the company itself, see WP:NOTWORK. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could derive notability through a third party way on the games they produce, but nothing is talking about the company directly. This clearly fails NCORP and should be deleted. I also feel we shouldn't have any redirect. The term itself Sports Mogul could be a notable term. So this was always the wrong title for the article in the first place. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clay Dreslough, notable person associated with the subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks standalone notability, and I think redirection is a bit of a stretch for something bigger than just one guy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge- to the more notable games I see is a good ATD, no SIGCOV caught my attention upon searching its current name, tried even to search for its former name Infinite Monkey Systems but seems to mostly turn up the Theorem than the game devs, did find this interview which I know is primary source, will add it here anyway as part of the discussion.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Clay Dreslough – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Clay Dreslough as an alternative to deletion, at least for now (I couldn't find any sources about the company as a whole either, but since it seems to have been bigger in the late 90s/early 2000s, it's possible offline/archived coverage exists). Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:43, 27 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.

Benjamin Heywood (entrepreneur)

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

Lacking sufficient coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Technology, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment There is an article at Benjamin Heywood about an older and notable subject and there is no concern I see regarding article title evasion or hijacking, and this is properly disambiguated. Nathannah • 📮 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any concerns raised about that. What made you think there might be an issue? - The9Man ^Talk 07:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common for promotional editors who want to brute force their articles here to use different titles with parentheticals to do so (especially after being salted); just commenting that this is not the case here for those on AfD so they know in advance and this is just a regular BLP. Nathannah • 📮 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little more detail in personal life includign citations that may help with that PaulWicks (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Counting the author's comment as an unbolded Keep, this is no longer eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks, I was fuzzy on AFD procedures so apologies for earlier confusion. I've now added references where these were needed; not all are perfect, e.g. Health 2.0 doesn't archive its talks so the best I can do is PLM's own blog. I've fleshed out the references from the New York Times. In terms of notability, I suppose the pitch I'd make would be:

1.) Significant coverage in reliable sources; multiple features in the New York Times & NYT Magazine interview Heywood about his work and family, subject of a documentary premiered at Sundance, subject of a book by a pulitzer prize winning author

2.) Significant award: Within the space of ALS research and advocacy, the Humanitarian award is the highest honour a non-medic can receive. (https://www.als.net/news/jamie-and-benjamin-heywood-receive-humanitarian-award/ / https://www.als.org/blog/hopeful-highlights-recent-als-mnd-symposium) - the International Alliance represents the many global ALS non profits around the world - it's even rarer for the award to go to someone who is not a medical professional.

3.) Founder of a significant company in the health space (PatientsLikeMe) that has been influential in multiple spheres PaulWicks (talk) 08:18, 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 Infinity Ward#Game engines. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IW (game engine)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. 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 or Redirect- to the Infinity Ward#Game engines I agree is a more sensible ATD to improve the context and add depth.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:02, 24 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Pure promotional spam, seems to be generated by AI as well. This is clearly going to continue to be a problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Hoffman (technology executive) seems to be relevant to this discussion as well. MediaKyle (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough significant sources. Most are routine news. also seems AI written and the creator might be a UPE with only 37 edits.Darkm777 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I was unable to locate any better sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 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 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

(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:

Appears to be largely similar to Gather/scatter (vector addressing) but with the editors unique and unsourced WP:OR
Recreation of a previously deleted article [8]
None of the concepts / explaination of the topic are cited in any way
None of the inline references even reference the term "permute instructions" but only specific subsets
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.
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[9] 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TiggerJay (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gather/scatter (vector addressing) is a sufficiently different concept than this article that a redirect/merge would not make sense. The similar terminology is misleading, the "scatter" type is rare and the "gather" type is often called "shuffle" or similar. Leaning towards WP:TNT. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT. REAL_MOUSE_IRL is right. The article is misleadingly confusing and relies mainly on primary sources. It's unclear whether an article about this is necessary vs., e.g., a paragraph in SIMD under a list of common SIMD instructions. (This article combines both SIMD and non-SIMD instructions but there is not a lot to say about non-SIMD permutes) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:29, 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.

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO with substantial independent coverage over decades, not just interviews: Wired (Feb 1997) on PrivNet/PGP; Forbes (July 1999) “The E-Gang”; Los Angeles Times (Apr 10, 2001) and Adweek (Apr 9, 2001) on eMusic’s sale to UMG (~$23–25m); Reuters (Sept 14, 2016) and Light Reading (Sept 14, 2016) on Amdocs’ acquisition of Vindicia. That is secondary, non-promotional sourcing across multiple career phases (so not WP:BIO1E). Any puffery is a cleanup Qrivas (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindicia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes source seems to be okay (apparently staff-written), although it is part of a listicle. But none of the other sources have independent non-trivial coverage. Many of these sources don't even mention Hoffman. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 25 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]

Delete I find only mentions and short quotes. I also note that this is the only article created by Qrivas who has all of 39 edits but seems quite comfortable with Wikipedia policies like "(so not WP:BIO1E)". This has all of the qualities of a WP:PAID. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 29 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

(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".[10] The designer, User:Lkcl is a COI editor who created the page. All on page references can be categorized as either being:

primary sources (official website, press-releases, blogs from COI, directory listings, etc); or
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 [11] [12][13]. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. TiggerJay (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OpenPOWER Foundation - I was already considering a WP:BLAR to that ___location, but you beat me to it. I believe that foundation itself is notable. It gets mentioned in a few books, although it is a little marginal. This abandoned project, however, is not independently notable. Everything that needs to be said about it can (and mostly is) said on that page already. We could add a sentence that it has now been abandoned, which is about all we can include from this page, since all the sourcing is primary and no product will emerge. It is not nothing - the project was an interesting one - but it falls well short of notability for its own article. To be clear, whilst technically a merge, the merged content here will be minimal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support BLAR'ing as an alternative to deleting -- if the correct amount of weight was applied. It seems like while Libre-SOC was a member of that organization, and this presentation was given at one of their conferences, it is only one of 388 videos on their YouTube channel, and one of nearly 350 members of the organization. As such, at most it would seem that only one or two sentences should be made in reference to Libre in the target article. TiggerJay (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OpenPOWER Foundation - I agree completely with Sirfurboy🏄. Suriname0 (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OpenPOWER Foundation per User:Sirfurboy. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment due to overwhelming support here for a BLAR, I have gone ahead and boldly merged what is probably an appropraite (or slightly more than due weight) content over, and propose that it be reviewed ~~and then we can move forward with a simple redirect~~. TiggerJay (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for merging content. I think we should still wait for the AfD close before creating the redirect, since we are here, and the page contains an AfD header, and since a BLAR can be undone by any editor, but a consensus at AfD is stronger. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, struck redirect until after AfD is complete. TiggerJay (talk) 17:07, 22 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

(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:

Primary source (5 of 6 ref are to the website of the project)
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)

A link to a broken "google group" -- forums are not reliable sources for establishing notability.
A link to a broken github page (a primary source anyways)
A directory listing site at sourceforge, redirecting to the current project site
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[14] 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 [[15]] 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Software. TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't at all my area and it is like reading a foreign language in the materials cropping up in searches. All I can say is, I got a promising number of hits in google scholar and just a few in google books using this as a search: "Pyjamas" software Python to JavaScript . Computer languages are not my expertise so I can't evaluate these materials. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 23 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 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

^ 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Technology, and Israel. JBchrch talk 12:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't meet WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 22 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:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AlanRider78 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This plainly meets WP:GNG / WP:NCORP via significant, independent, non‐routine coverage that goes well beyond trade press. The subject (the B2B tech arm formerly known as Parimatch Tech, now GR8 Tech) has been the focus of many media, with a here for instance Forbes Ukraine with an in-depth analysis of its scale, client mix, rebrand, headcount (~1,500), and revenue shock after Ukrainian sanctions on its parent company; that article alone satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH and is neither trivial nor routine. [16] Forbes. Coverage is not limited to industry trades: The Economic Times reported the suspension of operations, sanctions and an alleged illegal activity [17]. Here is the detailed editorial Vector media article dedicated to Gr8 Tech and all perturbagtions with indudstrial analysis [18]. Here is another good coverage from the tech media talking about closing, sanctions, activity in CIS.. [19]. Here is a big read from editorial Forbes team about Gr8 Tech on how they managed to rebrand and survive in recent years [20]. More and more are available under Parimatch Tech+Gr8 Tech online search [21], [22], [23]. Jungle archer (talk) 17:30, 15 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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva 22:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 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]

Delete: Seems sources just have WP:ROUTINE coverage and not able to find many sources with such details mentioned on the page. "Digital wellbeing" in many reliable sources is for broader concept of digital wellbeing and not just "a feature on Android developed by Google". Asteramellus (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG --Setwardo (talk) 16:07, 22 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.

[1] ttps://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html

[1]