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

T. K. Kurien

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BASIC. Another one of those accountant articles that doesn't tell us much except the positions he has held within his company. Considering that this and a lot of similar accountant articles were written more than a decade ago, many of them might have already retired. His so-called accomplishments are what any department head of any business firm might have also done. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Perry (computer specialist)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Left Unplugged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in Google news or books which is very unusual for an American organization. The 2 sources are from 2008 and it is not known if it got any coverage ever since. The San Francisco Chronicle source is local as per WP:AUD.LibStar (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and California. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I conducted a deep search for sources, but nothing was found discussing the subject. What came close with several mention is a similar name of No Child Left Behind Act- an act of the US congress. This article as it is fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another great idea, but not covered by significant public sources. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2024 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless DNC

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

Confusing mix of various technologies. Combines and conflates multiple technologies for transmitting data to a CNC machine, which might have been interesting when the article was written in 2008 but doesn't really stand out at all in today's much more wireless-friendly era. Doesn't really have a main topic and fails WP:GNG. Note the additional criticism from a claimed SME on the talk page. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTech Systems

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this. A search for sources found company's involvement in a skill development scam but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:PROMO. A search in google news did not yield anything significant. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, what about sources added to the article since its nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hungarian so hard for me to assess. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Ratnahastin. A lot of WP: CONTENTFORKING is there in article. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK actually.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, News media, Television, Technology, Aviation, Internet, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any evidence of redundant content fork here. Adani Enterprises is the largest company within the much broader Adani Group. In its own right, Adani Enterprises meets WP:LISTED as it is part of the NIFTY 50 index of the 50 largest Indian companies and has received significant coverage in international media [1], Indian media [2], and analyst reports [3] independent of the parent. This page appears to have passed the WP:AFC review legitimately in 2021. Concerns about paid edits should be addressed by cleaning up the problematic content, instead of deleting pages on otherwise highly notable topics. Yuvaank (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adani Group: as an WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Yuvaank, Clrealy meets WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Also already survived from previous AfD. Vofavy (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they don't say why do we need an "Adani Enterprises" when we have Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure content fork especially when we already have an article on Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, i can't believe how can someone mark such notable companies for deletion. I mean on what ground? Adani is one of the most notable companies in India, easily passes WP:NCORP. See the notices and warnings on nominator's talk page which has been deleted by the user. B-Factor (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ASPERSIONS. Dympies (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A better and deeper source evaluation is needed on the presented ones. Kindly note that keep !votes should provide proper rationale supported by reliable sources denoting notability and SIGCOV. Additionally, kindly address the need of the article when another similarly titled article already exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to address Dympies's comment above which seems to suggest we discount the sources presented by me on the basis of WP:NEWSORGINDIA: The Financial Times is not even an Indian news organization to begin with and is widely-regarded as one of the highest-quality sources for business-related topics. The Ken is pretty credible too as there is no evidence of paid reporting by them. The HDFC Securities analyst report satisfies WP:LISTED. These sources, along with it being part of NIFTY 50, establish this company's notability independent of the parent group umbrella. It is worth considering WP:SIZE of the Adani Group page before advocating for a merge/redirect. I'm also yet to see any evidence of content fork besides sweeping assertions. Yuvaank (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a reasonable solution to deleting a bad article that is a fork of a company - but is also a real subsidiary. We don’t need articles about every subsidiary of even the largest companies. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - One more article on the same topic is unnecessary. Agletarang (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2024 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trasna

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

Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. Coverage available (both in article and in WP:BEFORE search does not meet the WP:ORGCRIT -- instead, it's all a mix of primary sources, trivial mentions, press releases, niche WP:TRADES publications and coverage that would be excluded as WP:ORGTRIV. No reasonable redirect option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Almost all of the sources (in the article and that I can find) are press releases, primary sources, passing mentions and otherwise the same type of coverage we might expect for any similar small company. The number of issues with the limited references that are in place (including FV and WP:REFBOMB concerns) is also concerning. Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep looks like not clearly meeting NCORP but additional sources may exist per NEXIST as the organization is notable in its nature. --25lucky (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this !vote even mean? If you think it doesn't meet WP:NCORP, then that should be a delete, right? And if you are citing WP:NEXIST, please supply the evidence of said sources. We deal with real sources, not hypothetical sources. Finally, WP:NORG/WP:NCORP does not have a criterion for an organization that is "notable in its nature." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No relevant WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining in agriculture

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

Article covers a super narrow sub-specialist of research, with no easy way to maintain for about 8 years -- doesn't appear of lasting interest for Wikipedia readers, and its well out of date. Sadads (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is an increasingly relevant one, and there are plenty of hits in G-Scholar, some more recent than the ones in the article. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that the articles in this current article is indiscriminate, and would probably be handled better in a "data" or "machine learning" in agriculture -- I think the precision agriculture one is probably the best merge, Sadads (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge, first choice to Precision agriculture. The topic is covered too much for this to be deleted. But the article is largely an example farm uncritically summarizing primary sources. Merging to a new "data mining" section in Precision agriculture is the best option I have found, but I would consider other merge targets. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, a selective push of the content into another space, like precision agriculture. Sadads (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Walsh90210, this is an inappropriate example-farm. It's also written in the style of a comprehensive academic review paper, with intent to catalogue everything that's ever been done (think Annual Reviews of...). It fails to provide a selective overview of the field appropriate for an encyclopedia. For this reason, I don't think it's mergeable. Most of it would have to be deleted or drastically curtailed (basically a TNT deletion by another name), or a complete rewrite. If other editors agree, I'd prefer to see the entire Applications section removed, and the remainder of the article kept for future editors to build on. But I don't want it kept as it is, because there's too much risk of it lingering unchanged. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the applications section is the value here. Perhaps it could be reduced in size, but it does give an overall review of the state of the art. As with most "list"-type articles, there IS the danger of not being kept up to date, but I don't see that as a reason to remove the content. I also think that there is value in the sources - most look to be quite authoritative. If a merge is done, could these sources be included? Lamona (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blatantly notable - scholarly sources are numerous, and there have been even academic books on the topic. Concerns about the state of the article are not relevant. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE search in google books and google scholar makes it readily apparent that the topic easily passes WP:SIGCOV. WP:AFD is not cleanup, and with book-length coverage on this topic a merge is not appropriate. The solution, is to edit the article and make improvements by writing and expanding and sourcing the article to reliable secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Heel-and-toe shifting. asilvering (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized down shift rev-matching system

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a highly promotional page about a Nissan proprietary product with no indications that I can find of wider notability and importance JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term exists [4], but beyond sites using the phrase, there isn't anything at length about this. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The French Wikipedia article has nine references. Left guide (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting: which is the manual equivalent this system is designed to replace. In that target, a section about the Nissan system would be a perfect fit. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we reach consensus between deleting and merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, the obvious place for a brief mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting. Seems like a reasonable WP:ATD in this case.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.