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

Nai Lee Kalema

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

Subject is very early in their academic career (still a PhD candidate, with only 5 publications that have been cited by others). No apparent WP:NPROF pass. As for WP:GNG, sourcing is either primary, non-independent (affiliated with college she attend(ed) or work(ed) for), or does not provide significant coverage (or some combination thereof). I was not able to locate any additional coverage in g-news, g-books, PressReader, or newspapers.com Zzz plant (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Technology. Zzz plant (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to WP:PROF (that generally comes years after completing a PhD) and no sign of other forms of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Edit conflict w preceding comment) No sign of NPROF notability for this PhD student, noting in particular that the Kennedy School fellowship appears to be an early career job (and not a fellowship of a learned society as per NPROF C3). I don't see books for potential NAUTHOR notability. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlys

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases including product launches, new initiatives, and funding news as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. jolielover♥talk 06:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yantraraja

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

Topic already covered in Astrolabe. This is a duplicate article with not enough notability. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Astronomy, Technology, and India. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Astrolabe – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Astrolabe – The article says it is the Sanskrit word for astrolabe. Even if we are to say it is a specific type of astrolabe, there isn't enough content to warrant it having a separate article as of now. – Ike Lek (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberux

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

Failed crownfunding campaign on indiegogo, ~~website down~~, latest and only entry in news section is from 26 April, and no new captures in August, no social media activity since 30 Juni, after a flurry of activity in the months prior. Promised prototype has not been relased. That's what I call a dead parrot. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Spain. jolielover♥talk 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Press from January and June 2025 mainly. All promotional and nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ColosseoEAS

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

Having removed a lot of original research, it's clear the subject of this article fails WP:NCORP. C 679 08:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Slovakia. C 679 08:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wispr Flow

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cited sources are mostly blogs, PR-based articles, funding rounds, launch of products, all come under WP:CORPTRIV. Lacks direct and in-depth articles to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. jolielover♥talk 07:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trupeer

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

None of the cited sources pass WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Most of the cited sources come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CDBurnerXP

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This program was quite popular as an alternative to Nero and Alcohol 120 in the 2000s [1]. I think the article is valid as a historical record. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popular dos not equal to meet the Wikipedia GNG guidelines. They are 2 different things. Cassiopeia talk 22:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by TechRadar: [2], PC World: [3], c't magazine: [4], Articles by PCNET (Turkish magazine): [5], [6], [7]. I didn't check all 352 hits on archive.org, there could be more but those should be enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Znanost.org

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

The external links are not enough to show notability - for example although the British Council is a reliable source the link does not say enough about the subject of this article. Also if it is notable why is there no Croatian article? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Technology, and Croatia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI bubble

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

Tried Draft:AI bubble, but it was rejected as some duplicate of AI winter or whatever (oldid). I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft and how it's not some duplicate or derivative of AI winter. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Technology. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's a duplicate of AI winter because that article is about a drop in funding and interest in AI, whereas AI bubble is about a large increase in funding. An AI winter would occur only after a bubble burst. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AI boom (despite the seeming grudge-based nature of this AfD). I don't think it's redundant with AI winter because that is about general cycles in artificial intelligence, whereas this is specifically about 2020s generative AI. But having a separate article for a bubble that has yet to burst seems WP:TOOSOON. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the seeming grudge-based nature: "grudge-based"? How have I held a grudge against this topic or the article? I didn't think that this article would be created recently, honestly. George Ho (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the recently made article is any better than the now-deleted draft -- Unless I'm missing something I'm not sure how your unrelated draft has anything to do with this article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a draft, citing reliable sources, trying to contest the so-called "AI boom", but it was rejected. As I figured, trying to prey the draft up still isn't worth another rejection. If that's unconvincing, shall I ping the one who rejected my draft then? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I really meant, I just now requested un-deleting the draft I made... just in past revisions, i.e. for historical use. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first draft I was referring to (old ID). Any similarities and differences so far? George Ho (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't the right place for this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You said my draft is unrelated and doesn't have anything to do with this article, so I showed you the contrary. George Ho (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the place to discuss drafts, and this AfD is not about your draft. It is the place to discuss whether an existing article in article space should be deleted, and so the article under discussion is the existing AI bubble article, not your draft. I don't know how to put this any more clearly. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well cited with a lot of independent sources. Don't see how this is redundant to AI winter at all. Both the Cryptocurrency bubble and Dot-com bubble have pages. –DMartin 22:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AI boom, as WP:TOOSOON. Unlike the crypto and dot-com bubbles, this one hasn't burst (yet) so we can't properly say it's a bubble, WP:CRYSTAL references notwithstanding. No prejudice against re-creation when the bubble is proven to be just that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources exist such as Fox News and nbc and the New York Times 2600:4040:2821:D500:CCC7:26A9:B84B:E228 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I specifically made the redirect (now moved to Draft:AI bubble) becuase of WP:FUTURE, Wikipedia should not have speculative articles about things that people suspect are happening. I added "With possibilities" merely becuase if it ends up bursting it should become an article. But as of now, an article about a speculative bubble is not appropriate.

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me there's enough coverage for this subject. As WP:CRYSTAL states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Sophocrat (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sophocrat Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mihon

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. The article is sourced almost entirely to primary/self-published material. The only third-party mentions located focus on Tachiyomi (the upstream project) rather than this fork. LvivLark (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Webcomics, Products, Technology, Software, Websites, and Japan. LvivLark (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – agree on WP:GNG; A section at Tachiyomi as a "significant" fork or "successor" could be warranted based on the (self-reported) user count. NormThe (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – merge into Tachiyomi, provided it is WP:DUE. ~~~~

Editor1769 21:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively ("smerge") as per Editor1769. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones

AfDs for this article:

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

Arbitary hand-picked collection that can never be anywhere near completeness because there are so many of these products. Much too broad and is just a collection of tables that aren't so useful. Prebenn (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Prebenn (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The information tables are rather detailed, but with no inline citations, it's too hard to check if the info is correct. One of those articles that is too long to likely be incorrect/hokum, but who knows. We could draft I suppose, but this is too long of a list to be worked on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Besides all the issues listed above, it's also actually impossible to compare two phones on the basis of what is actually just a hopelessly long list of all phones with certain (one hopes key) specifications. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. jolielover♥talk 15:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm shocked this survived four deletion discussions. Majorly unsourced, too broad of a topic now that there are thousands of models of smartphones out there, quite frankly trivial and WP:INDISCRIMINATE... jolielover♥talk 15:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likely informative for many, but it is not fit for this encyclopaedia. Orientls (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the last votes in the previous nom claimed this could be improved, but generally if you have to use the left-right scroll to see an entire list, that is more an impediment than anything and we're at a point with the oversaturation of the smartphone market where this article must be let go (the listing of phones not universally found worldwide like our old blacklisted friends Huawei/ZTE and overpacking of various barely different Oppos doesn't help either). Nathannah • 📮 00:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Let'srun (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is also a similar deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of digital SLRs for similar reasons. --Prebenn (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... this is a massive unweildy article trying to list as many different model of smartphone as possible and compared them to one another. Far too broad in scope and poorly backed up with referencing. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI/ML Development Platform

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

This article does not establish notability. It's also mostly seemingly AI generated and not useful. Based on the information presented in the article, I see no reason for it to exist. popodameron ⁠talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. popodameron ⁠talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as AI slop. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as AI-generated, and the cited references that I checked never talk about "AI/ML development platforms" as a cohesive topic, but talk about individual AI applications. So it's WP:SYNTH as well as slop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced thermal recycling system

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

This is a proprietary technology that lacks information in reliable, independent sources. Without those independent sources I don't believe this article can meet the sourcing requirements to meet verifiability and notability guidelines.

There does not seem to be much difference between this trademarked system and a typical waste-to-energy + materials incineration process. I do not believe a redirect is appropriate in this case as the term is too generic and searching for "advanced thermal recycling" brings up a variety of recycling methods. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In English sources there isn't much on this. However, if one googles by its German name (fortschrittliches thermisches recycling) more materials start cropping up. I am not particularly adept at sifting through German language materials, and evaluating coverage here requires that skill. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. [8] [9][10][11] 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: [12] [13] [14]. 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]

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]

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]

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[15] 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 [[16]] 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]

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. [17] Forbes. Coverage is not limited to industry trades: The Economic Times reported the suspension of operations, sanctions and an alleged illegal activity [18]. Here is the detailed editorial Vector media article dedicated to Gr8 Tech and all perturbagtions with indudstrial analysis [19]. Here is another good coverage from the tech media talking about closing, sanctions, activity in CIS.. [20]. Here is a big read from editorial Forbes team about Gr8 Tech on how they managed to rebrand and survive in recent years [21]. More and more are available under Parimatch Tech+Gr8 Tech online search [22], [23], [24]. 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]

^ https://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html

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

[1]