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

Mykyta Nagatkin

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

Person is not notable, the article is promotional only with no significant reliable coverage; speedy delete? 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Nick Nagatkin another previous attempt to recreate the page 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
(Speedy) Delete - non-notable, undisclosed paid-for spam, created by Bodiadub sockpuppet, associated with known Wikibusines article Digis. MER-C 15:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Zugara

AfDs for this article:

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

Some days ago, Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Enhanced network selection

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear what the topic really means outside of GSM, not clear that sources exist to show notability JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to GSM I guess? Seems like an obscure and obsolete feature of old cellular phones used by one particular network during a transition period? I guess Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and could cover a topic this obscure, if there were appropriate references, but there don't seem to be. I just see forum posts and patent applications (which are highly technical and don't explain the term, and are primary sources we wouldn't generally use anyway). --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete a generic term. The article is unsourced, and was presumably written based on a single-source: a description in a c.2005 manual about the GSM protocol. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

3Roam

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and France. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Insufficient coverage, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

E@Iedit

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, Technology, Internet, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: 1 (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

AI eraedit

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

This entire article reads like a WP:CRYSTAL essay and contains nothing that isn't covered better in the many other AI-related articles, most of which are linked. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete. Remove the speculation and the hyperbole, and there is nothing covered here that isn't already done better elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for crystal-ball gazing essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Feel free to remove any speculation, I don't believe it belongs in the article or at least should be reworded to be more neutral and merely quoting and documenting the various perspectives of what people and organization are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete More 'basic machine learning rebranded as a buzzword' WP:PROMO. If there is an age, it doesn't even have shape cognition yet, and that 'period of AI era section'...this is why we have WP:MADEUP, except I'm sure a kid's game would actually be playable compared to this grown adult's invented nonsense. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

It should probably be noted here that the 'Periods of AI era' section contains blatant WP:OR. It cites a June 2024 publication for the 'nomenclature', while citing an article from 2019 for 'defining events'. The 2019 article (paywalled unfortunately) can not possibly be defining words before they were invented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

No question it's OR, and it looks like it's sourced from a blatant pay-for-play paper mill. Nate • (chatter) 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

delete For all we know this could end up being the "LLM Era", the lead of which could very well end "LLMs were eventually abandoned when it was determined that they and Bitcoin mining were consuming half the energy budget of the planet to produce a great deal of unreliable and even hoax output." A pure distillation of hype and WP:CRYSTAL that needs to be suppressed before it's used by the unwary to bring this monstrosity to life in the internet wilds. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not just the LLM era, practically all experts at this stage agree that AI will continue improving and surpassing humans at more and more tasks with no signs of a coming plateau from scaling. This will inadvertently lead to the development of AGI, significant job losses and restructuring of human society.

Nothing about it is really hype, and nothing in the article is predicting anything in the future as fact, its merely documenting what independent and notable sources are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

I got my copy of Computer Power and Human Reason when it was brand-new and I was in high school, so I think I have a sufficient history of seeing the various World-Changing Advances In Artificial Intelligence go by the wayside, one by one, to be dubious about this one whose experience by the public is only a year or so old. We are still in the hype/panic stage of LLMs, and there's no telling whether or not they're going to be a dead end like all the rest. For all we know, in a couple of years everyone could be saying "well, THAT was a bad idea" or it could become a festering backwater like blockchain. It's simply too soon to proclaim an era, and an encyclopedia doesn't get points for being the first to jump on the bandwagon. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Keep - it has the purpose of documenting the hundreds of media articles that are claiming the start of an AI era, the fact that every major tech company focusing on the development of artificial general intelligence, and we are indisputably heading towards a post-AGI future Mr Vili talk 18:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

@Black Kite can you please let me know which other article there is on wikipedia dedicated to documenting the large-scale ongoing effects of AI. Clearly there is hundreds of media articles, scholarly articles and reports from extremely notable organizations that are clearly pointing describing it as the next industrial revolution and a new era in human history.

The closest is the AI boom, but that is merely covering the technological perspective, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing documenting the ongoing effects and anticipated post-AGI world... Even if a post-AGI world is never actualized, it's large-scale anticipation is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, considering Google, Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, and many other of the largest tech companies are all narrowing down to develop AGI, with some explicitly making that their mission.

To say that doesn't deserve any encyclopedic coverage seems absurd Mr Vili talk 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. It should encyclopaedically cover subjects as discussed in independent reliable secondary sources, and is not a publisher of original research. This page is not a summary of a subject in independent reliable secondary sources. No anthropologists are writing about the mesonoetic period. That table of periods, for instance, is sourced to an article on Daniweb, an online technology forum. Is it reliable? the writer claims to be a journalist, but I see not sign any editor seriously touched that piece. It is, in any case, a primary source for the information it is supporting. If the writer makes up the period names, it's a primary source used here. And he certainly seems to have made them up. He definitely doesn't reference anything for them. Building an article from a mishmash of this kind of information is fundamentally flawed - and what s true there is true throughout. This is OR, and should be deleted per WP:NOT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not encyclopedic. The predictions are unsubstantiated and are sourced from those profiting from them. There are more than enough articles about actual current developments in the field. Swinub (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply

A merge of any relevant content into AI boom may be the course of action which should be taken. This merge was proposed a few months ago, and while these two articles cover slightly different timespans, they have related topics. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Any content merged would first require verification to ensure that it was cited to a reliable source, and that it accurately represented what the source had to say. Having looked at the sources cited, and what they are supposedly being cited for, I suspect that there would be very little left to merge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply

I oppose merge of what would be OR being merged into the AI boom page. A merge would damage that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Huawei Mate 8edit

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

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

John Werneredit

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

I nominated this for AfD because an IP prodded it and I felt like it might be controversial. Not sure if he meets the WP:GNG but there are a decent amount of sources. (Don’t seem reliable though, citehighlighter is highlighting a lot of them orange and red) 48JCL TALK 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete - Seems to be a well-written résumé, but doesn't impress me as anything else. It has a self-aggrandizement tone throughout. The large section "Early life and education" is irrelevant to notability. In a nutshell, this individual has been a successful career business man. But that usually means getting a good education and making the right connections to rise to the top. However, I don't find where he meets WP:ANYBIO, and he would not match any other criteria. — Maile (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Also, I am suspicious that this may be a case of WP:AUTO (e.g. the headshot picture is uploaded by johnkellogwerner). A significant number of the sources are problematic, with some being press releases, personal blogs, local pieces, and the subject's alumni magazine (the info from which likely comes from the subject himself). Manyyassin (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Supplemental Resultedit

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

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure but page looks to me to've been AI-written. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I doubt. The article was created in 2007 and BLARd in 2017. Jay 💬 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah. Prob not then. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.edit

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

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/

The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Lesaka Technologiesedit

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

Run-of-the-mill and other insufficient sources without proper in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails GNG, NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply

* Keep - The Mail & Guardian article seems prominent enough to establish notability. WmLawson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~reply

Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply

Block evasion, at any rate -- struck. jp×g 🗯️ 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply

Keep based on present citations and also have found these additional citations Insider Monkey, Seeking Alpha, itweb, and The Street. It should be noted that this is a publicly listed company on NASDAQ and there are more news articles in Google under its current name and old name "Net 1 UEPS." Hkkingg (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hkkingg, Seeking Alpha and TheStreet are, as I understand it, generally considered group blogs, not RS, and as far as I can tell Insider Monkey seems to be the same. Is there any specific reason not immediately obvious you believe those sources meet the criteria? (itweb seems to be a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement as well) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply

I don't know about this one. Simply Wall Street has a detailed analysis of the company's stock performance,2 and this article (the second half) has important facts about the company (e.g., "3,300 employees in five African countries"), but there are so many press releases in the search results that it's hard to tell what's useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Microlectureedit

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at 3 (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.