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

Civolution

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

Both of these articles are written by then marketing director Josserand, apparently from his personal knowledge. Much of the original text seems to be entirely impossible to find sources for. Fails WP:V, WP:N and is essentially a WP:BROCHURE besides. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian well

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

Misleading article. There's nothing called Persian well, subject actually refers to Persian wheel and is a WP:Content fork of that article. Kalhana's Rajatarangini is not ancient, it was written in 12th century and, by that time, this mechanism was already popular. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, Social science, Technology, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saqiyah: Per nominee - This is essentially a duplicate topic and the other article/name seems to be much better supported in the literature. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThadeusOfNazereth, the problem with redirecting is that this name is non-existent. There's nothing called "Persian well", you can Google it. The article creator just put a name to the wells in which Persian wheels are used. There's nothing special about the well.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not just be a redirect from the incorrect name? It seems like a reasonable enough search term to me. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and ThadeusOfNazereth. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dell laptops

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

Propose redirect to List of laptop brands and manufacturers (or another target). Prose primarily consists of unsupported and, at times, subjective and vague assertions. The list seems like it has a useful navigational purpose, but is more or less redundant to Dell's section on the broader list. This proposal is not for lack of notability but because the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, I would otherwise have suggested a merge (to a different target). Bringing this to AFD instead of BLARing because it was previously PRODed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, and Texas. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Other than the list of Dell brands (which is already at the target) there is really nothing here. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Khadka

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

Promotional page, not close to meeting WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a number of people with this name, but I don’t see sources to indicate this one is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riana Lynn

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

Non-notable "AI pioneer" peddling dubious AI "inventions". Did you know the AI craze has reached foods? This individual has been the recipient of such accolades as "acknowledged in the list of 83 Black founders and investors to know in 2024 by Pitchbook". This is a typical BLP of highly questionable notability that has been jammed full of incidental mentions, paid promotions, self-published source, and listicles which do not contribute to notability. I reviewed a number of the sources looking for anything substantive and came up empty. Setting aside my personal distaste for AI and the notability problems, this is also poorly written boosterism, with cringe-inducing writing such as "In her career, Lynn has graced hundreds of different stages as a public speaker, keynote, and panelist including Keynoting IBM's Innovation conference in 2020, Food AI Summit held in 2023, in Alameda, SXSW future of food in March 2021, and BigIdeasATX3, hosted by Silicon Hills News." I could make a source assessment table, but I'd rather not spend an hour sorting through the 38 low quality references present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are PR items and trade journals. This does feel PROMO, having patents isn't terribly notable; most of the sourcing used in the article is mostly yellow per Source Highlighter, of questionable quality. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Technology, Illinois, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I found WP:SIGCOV in one WP:RS of the subject in the Chicago Tribune and a paragraph in USA Today. I would move this article to Draft so it could be re-written to remove the WP:PROMO tone and include more reliable sources. Some of the aforementioned "yellow" sources, e.g. Cosmopolitan, may be OK. Nnev66 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Chicago Tribune source looks decent, and USA Today is reliable but the extent she's mentioned is below what I'd call significant coverage personally. If editors believe this can be salvaged, I will not oppose draftification. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe someday, but this does not yet merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and lacks adequate WP:RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s already been draftified once. TOOSOON and TNT. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoComplete (company)

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

Unequivocally fails WP:NCORP. Only two of the references are about the subject of the article itself, one is a press release and the other is an article covering a routine fundraising event from an outlet with questionable reliability. Brandon (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Brandon (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a car insurance intermediary start-up. Most of the History section is a recital of the founders' previous commercial activity, which is not relevant to the notability of the present company; aside from that we have a funding announcement which is WP:CORPTRIV. The remainder of the article is a promotionally-worded product summary (I note a previous Draft was deleted as G11 promotional). Fails to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AllyD. Also, the creator a SPA who is another fan of AI. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that the company fails criteria for now, but it has good reputation and links which talk about it.
Draftify it until we get something more about this company. HatedCreak (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corvigo

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

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tumbleweed Communications. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison (author)

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

As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Technology, Internet, and Texas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliate WFAA and NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. - Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more input before making up my mind. Bearian (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term is far too vague to be encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely self-explanatory DICDEF, and the concept is so general I don't see how it could be expanded into a full article on different types or examples of technical failure, etc. without massive amounts of OR and/or SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Technological failures category that covers this pretty well already (and I guess would be a search result if this page didn't exist, so no need for a redirect). Adam Sampson (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([1] [2] [3] [4]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't close AFDs with Move closures which are an editorial decision. If you want this outcome, argue for a Keep and then a page move can be discussed. Also, it really helps the closer if you provide a link to the exact Redirect or Merge target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]