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

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. Article has changed, discussion has clear direction and no "deleters". (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram face

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

"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, Medicine, Technology, and Internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Well the "Instagram face" is a thing, [1] and [2], but the wiki article seems to tell a different story. Should be sent back to draft to sort this out, topic seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, This is a topic I was able to find some sources on, so it's optimal for this to stay in draftspace until its ready for main space. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is a topic. [3] [4] If it needs more depth or a rebalancing, I'm happy to take that on. I note that all the sources listed on this page are written by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)
Keep Plenty of coverage in solid outlets. There is no reason for this to go to draft space with the citations it currently has. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Thriley. 12u (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For clearing up the remaining issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the issues that cannot be fixed through normal editing? If we send it to draft it risks being pruned after inactivity which would amount to backdoor deletion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the reliable sources news search at the top and you'll see plenty of reliable sources give this significant coverage. https://www.wired.com/story/goopcore-body-horror-age-of-instagram-face/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5c237a34-7a47-4deb-a5b4-a23e77cc88f7 etc. Dream Focus 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those editors arguing for Draftification and those advocating Keep as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've drafted a rewrite using 6 reliable sources including those mentioned in this discussion. It's now two paragraphs with a clear scope. The sources cover a span of about 6 years. I've used named references and welcome other editors to expand where appropriate, especially Lfstevens. @Oaktree b, Samoht27, and ArvindPalaskar: you all voted draftify, does it still seem too far off the mark or is this an acceptable start? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is enough to make this page a safe Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems properly verifiable and is now sourced fairly well; notable topic with interest from major publications. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the article has been improved since the nomination, which moots out the "draftify" into purgatory !votes. There are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for the original nomination, i see the only valid ground of the nomination would have been whether the subject was "unverifiable," but it is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on present citations and also additional coverage exists which I have added: The Zoe Report and Tablet Magazine.Hkkingg (talk) 07:52, 1 June 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 moot‎. While we normally suggest avoid making such changes during an AfD, the pages have been merged and redirected and there is clearly no inclination here to do anything else. I am closing this discussion because it is moot due to editorial actions in the interim, anyone should feel free to start another discussion of any type. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UL 365

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages:

// Timothy :: talk 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Never used talk pages before, is this how we "talk".

I need to google many of the terms in your talk comments?

Reply No need for Google, I have wikilinked the above terms and you might find Wikipedia:Glossary helpful for any other terms you come across. // Timothy :: talk 23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back in about 20 hours, and will reply then.

Some things may be a bit circular at the moment, please bear with me. I am adding the content as I can at work, estimating a week.

Background, I am a security architect, and for work I needed the information I am authoring. I am not affiliated with UL.

I have discovered that the information I and my colleagues needed, is (mostly) not found on the internet. It is many, many closed areas. I feel this information should be in Wikipedia as #3 of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars states. I am privileged to have access to many of the usges of these standards, and the standards themselves. Theses standards are an unseen impact on security, but very large impact they do have. See businesswire.com's "Global Alarm Monitoring Market Report 2021 Market to Reach 57.7 Billion by 2026"[5] for some ideas as to the scope.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline I see "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

Maybe the items I am putting together should go in one page. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" Jpyeron (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, regarding the secondary sources - there are many non public secondary sources. At the same time a standard is measured not by its citations, but by its usage.

Look at many devices, see the stickers? Here you can see all the companies saying they are compliant with UL 2610: [6]https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22UL+2610%22#ip=1 Jpyeron (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue spending my time improving the content, but I would like to get some community consensus on that the articles are kept or merged. I am thinking they should be merged in to one page covering the security standards.

Based on my reading of WP:GNG it is not applicable (passes), and WP:SIRS is uniquely narrow for this case. Again, 5th pillar. Can someone cite specifics?

Will follow up in a day. Jpyeron (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the AFD is now classified as "could not be categorised due to insufficient information in the article". I want to continue putting in the information, but: I do not have responses to my above clarifications, and I am not going to put significant investment if it is just going to be deleted.

If the insufficient information is the reason, isn't incubation the proper remedy? Jpyeron (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge the articles tomorrow, the new article will have this AFD at the top and the other pages will redirect to it. I think this addresses the "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."

The new merged article Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring will also eventually have other non-UL items, such as ISO/IEC 22237-6:2024. I will follow up tomorrow. Jpyeron (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friday got away from me, doing the merge now. creating Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring and then setting the redirects. Jpyeron (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you know, but you left the article deletion tag in the new article. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did put it there on purpose, because "removal is not allowed" until consensus. The new article is a merger of the old 3. Jpyeron (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the merger and redirects - I will follow up Monday Jpyeron (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated articles were merged and changed into a redirects two days ago. It's discussed in the above "thread" but that's just Jpeyron making a series of comments and nobody objecting. I don't think this is how things are supposed to be done even as part of a good faith effort to resolve the deletion rationale.
I think the appropriate thing is for @Jpyeron to revert the changes and then propose a merge with a rationale given. The merge article can be moved to draftspace. Note that there are rules about WP:Copying within Wikipedia that may also be at play. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so, it is hard to do the right thing in a vacuum.

Regarding the merge, I created the pages separate, but after reading up on the AfD and associated items the merger process seemed to be the best logical organization.

But I am a bit confused on the "copying" thing. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed .

Note, this week is going to very busy for me, had dedicated time last week for putting the content in. More time after 3-Jun. Jpyeron (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the preference is for leaving pages for deletion in place so they can be assessed by participating editors. On the other hand (and I do this a lot), editors are encouraged to work on improving articles to prevent deletion. It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect.
I guess copying rule doesn't apply. I hadn't looked through the history to see that you were the only editor of those pages.
I'm happy to vote merge -- it does seem to be a good outcome, and if one of the sub-subjects turns out to be notable someone can create a WP:FORK over your redirect page. In which case the copying rule would apply! Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer merge as well.

re: "It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect." it is why I added the AFD to the top of the new.

Should I revert? It is much easier to edit in the new doc, and continue to add to it. I am going to hold off on the busy work reversion until there is a clear request/preference to revert. Jpyeron (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge General members of the public rely on alarm system standards to assess the quality, safety, and effectiveness of systems they procure, often looking for certification marks to ensure trust in these products. This article provides an overview of these standards to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to understand the gist without delving into technical details. For industry stakeholders, it highlights how adherence to these standards facilitates compliance and maintains a competitive edge, serving as a gateway for further detailed exploration of specific standards and best practices. Jpyeron (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please clarify for me, what is the Merge target article here? It can't be one that is also nominated for AFD deletion. Are all articles to be Merged to the same target article? Please be very specific on what outcome you want and do not usurp the discussion and Merge and Redirect before this discussion is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this was discussed above. I am new to this process and trying to do the most meaningful work. Do you want me to revert the redirects at this time? Do you want me to remove the AFD from the new target article? Jpyeron (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz as far as I can see, @Jpyeron created a set of pages for these UL specifications, then when @TimothyBlue nominated them for deletion they in good faith decided to merge them into a single larger article at [Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring]]. When it was relisted, I tried to untangle this and got frustrated by the redirects, which led to my comment above. A comment which could have been more welcoming of the efforts as I can't see why the combined article wouldn't be a better outcome assuming it's properly sourced.
@Jpyeron I can't speak for Liz, but I think the AfD notice should be removed. You pasted it in when you created the merge article. I'm going to be bold and remove it as it doesn't belong to that article. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 26 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Wishlist

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

Only coverage is press releases/funding announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 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!} 23:24, 27 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PayTabs

AfDs for this article:

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

Every source is a press release of crummy business award except for one - an interview with the founder published in Entrepreneur India. Given WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the general surface level, uncritical tone of the article I'm skeptical this is quality coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Saudi Arabia. BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input, I have asked the brand to place proper link. This will be done in 1-2 days. 180.151.24.178 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If "the brand" want to contribute anything, they should limit themselves to suggesting edits on the article Talk page, with full disclosure. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious WP:UPE but evaluating on a notability level, it fails WP:NCORP. Yes, NEWSORGINDIA applies to some of the referencing but even outside of that the references are weak. For instance, this reference in the Arab News seems good on its face until you see it is basically WP:CHURNALISM from this press release. Nothing I can find would meet WP:NCORP. I am also anticipating IPs and SPAs coming with keep votes. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links are OK now, if there is any specific media mention that needs to be deleted or replaced, please let us know. We will get it done Prince-rkt (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> We

Are you a paid editor? If so, why have you not disclosed your affiliation under WP:COI? BrigadierG (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not a paid editor, I am an employee of PayTabs and have created the page with limited expertise. Therefore you can let me know the limitations or problem areas. 180.151.243.205 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As they are your employer, this is still a conflict of interest, even though it was done in good faith. You might like to build your expertise on Wikipedia by editing articles that are not directly related to your work, but on things that interest you. In the case of this page, you would be well advised to contribute through the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. G4 and enforce AFC or some other process. Probably could have just drafified tbh, the title is already salted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 26 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPC SYSTEM

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

Promotional page for a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources fail to support claim of notability. Analysis follows:

Sources 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14-17 are sponsored content/press releases and not independent.
Sources 3, 5, and 11 are WP:INTERVIEWS.
Sources 4, 8, and 9 are in WP:TRADES publications and thus ineligible for notability. (Source 4's over-the-top language praising the company and its CEO gives it the ring of sponsored content or paid placement.)
Source 6 is a primary source.
Source 7 purports to be a clip of a newspaper article but it is hosted on the subject's own website and does not include the date of publication, and search to verify on the publication's site turns up no result.
Source 13 is a straight-up advertisement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (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/2024 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had been meaning to get to this one but hadn't found the time till now. Does look like there isn't anything, and interesting to note that the frwiki version of the article (which seems to be created by the glocked MehdiKass) has been deleted due to cross-wiki UPE spam. Wonder if it's a translation? Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 25 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references are a collection of PR announcements and company soundbites. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 28 May 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 redirect‎ to KT Corporation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited

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

As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All refs fail WP:SIRS in one way or another, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have not been able to find anything either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also comfortable with a redirect to KT Corporation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UtherSRG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KT Corp. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:58, 21 May 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 delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Micro Inc

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

This article was created by an employee and may have been later editor by one or two other employees. It reads as promotional and there are no cited sources other than the company itself. Unclear this company is notable; we have no article on the company that bought it. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Spaceflight. Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find a few seemingly independent sources, but the majority are clearly either written by the company or (in in one case) a closely related company. I couldn't find anything on Google Books or Scholar.

A closer look at the creator's contributions and talk page shows that this user is clearly only on here to promote the company, and has a conflict on interest. The page itself seems to fit within the definition of WP:NOTPROMO. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also can't find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which can't be used to establish notability per WP: NCOMPANY.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 23 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summit Open Source Development Group

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this organization, and the only mentions I can find just note that they maintained the Abusive Hosts Blocking List. Either a redirect or delete would be a good outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of this article. Honestly it only really exists because of a situation a long time ago and really the org is in almost read-only state at this point since I'm retired from IT. Brielle (talk) 01:32, 20 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marabunta (software)

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

Obscure P2P application with no significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any coverage at all. Even the website is down. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find much mention of it anywhere. Waqar💬 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage.Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 24 May 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 redirect‎ to Diversi-Dial. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System

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

Obscure Bulletin board system, ~~which was/is based in the Bay Area from what I can tell~~. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Redirecting to Diversi-Dial would be a reasonable outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might not be based in the Bay Area, I might have gotten this confused with "Synerchat" which appears to be related to Synergy Teleconferencing System but might not be the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... turns out Synergy Teleconferencing System was definitely a global thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:05, 18 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!} 07:02, 25 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!} 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence of existence except [7], which appears to be self-published. We cannot reliably source anything, so we should probably delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 2 June 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamales Lardi

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia. The article should therefore be kept. Dlarrpi (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't about this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only contributions by Dlarrpi have been to this article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person. Rest are fluff pieces or PR items... I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Oaktree b and DE above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A (P)romotional WP:MILL. Refbomb also incorporated. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The photo portrait of Lardi submitted by single-purpose account Dlarrpi is formidable but cannot compensate for the astonishing lack of independent notability. Our subject is certainly determined, so the future may hold differently. -The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 28 May 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 The Open Source Definition. Not 100% sure I got this one right but if I didn't, I'm sure someone will tell me or take this to DRV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[8][9]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [10], [11], [12]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are 3 different target articles being proposed here. To carry out this option as a closure, we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The only candidates I see are the OSD and Buidhe's draft of it. That says, @Buidhe would you kindly link us to your draft? I can't find it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was incorporated as the main space article on 18 May. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe I'm talking about the draft for the OSD, not the draft of the Open Definition, unless you would see it fit to merge to the latter article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's located at The Open Source Definition, see the diff from May 18 (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. So there's only one sane target article.
@HyperAccelerated I assume you also agree to merging to OSD? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSD is fine with me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:55, 10 June 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 delete‎. Despite the limited participation, this cannot be soft-deleted, as it qualifies under G5 as the creation of an indef-blocked sock. No prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing, if sources establishing notability can be found. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altair4 Multimedia

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

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "Altair4 Multimedia," "Altair 4 Multimedia," and "Altair Multimedia," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. GSS ^💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Archaeology, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my check, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, which is needed to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The subject fails both of these guidelines. GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 24 May 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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem myX-2

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - depending on the outcome of this discussion, we may also want to nominate Sagem myX-7 for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 17 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!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is a product, not a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck -- sock. jp×g 🗯️ 01:52, 30 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!} 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 7 June 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 redirect‎ to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wael William Diab

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

BLP with no evidence of notability. Existing references are to:

1/3/7: primary source bios
2: a list of WP:PATENTS, which does not contribute to notability.
4: a press release
5/8/9: WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in non-independent sources
6: self-authored material

WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:17, 17 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!} 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42: It is verifiable that he chairs the organisation. The article doesn't WP:GNG and so, redirect since he won am award that was unverifiable but I a certain it should be. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I'm OK with that AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philtech Institute of Arts and Technology

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

Fairly new private school with questionable notability. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable ref hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. No good target for redirection. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails, fails, fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:CCOS. Only thing keeping this article from WP:A7 is the fact it is a school. Bgv. (talk) 06:27, 23 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VINAStech

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

This article seems like a WP:PROMO, most of the sources are not in depth like confirming their clients. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in IRS appears to be approximately zero. Being a brochure doesn't help here either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it does fail WP:NCORP lacks sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 16:55, 23 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashaba Victor

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

I'm not seeing coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. The company that he works for VINAStech is also up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some content might be work merging to the article on the local senatus for the Legion of Mary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is of one of the people that are key to the Senatus of Uganda. He is one of the officers. I think the content doesn't require merging NBV2010 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no evidence of any coverage meeting the basic biographical criteria, any additional criteria, or any other criteria for establishing suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the company he works for may not be a ground for deletion of the Nashaba article because his popularity is more beyond that company, VINAStech NBV2010 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in WP:SIGCOV .Dowrylauds (talk) 16:47, 23 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinebulle

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. toweli (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Aviation. toweli (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me neither. no sigcov. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:52, 16 May 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 delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronix corporation

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

Purely promotional. Can we move it to the draft or delete? Tanhasahu (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to Delete, the company is no longer in business 76.192.65.129 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've found one source, Tilly, Chris; Carré, Françoise J. (2017). Where bad jobs are better: Retail jobs across countries and companies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 42, 62–63, 65–67, 94, 97, 108. ISBN 978-1-61044-870-3. which seems reasonable. Usually what we do for these older, poorly sourced articles where pretty much nobody would even know has been draftified is to reduce it to a stub of a few sentences, basically what can be verified to the sources and which tone would not be a problem, and then tagg it with the relevant Wikipedia:Maintenance tags. Would this be acceptable to the two of you, Tanhasahu and Sgubaldo? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to that book, but if that's the case, then sure. The only mentions in the books I can find are very brief. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Deletion will be better. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm having trouble finding anything else, might bump it to ARS though to see if they have any more luck. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 19 May 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 redirect‎ to Datadog#Acquisitions where it is mentioned Star Mississippi 01:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDIV

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

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Websites. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for Jay, Shhhnotsoloud, and Tavix, who participated in the previous discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 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!} 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Datadog as it was acquired by them. Currently the article lacks proper citations.Hkkingg (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't mentioned in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There now seems to be a mention of HDIV at § Acquisitions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:20, 3 June 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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic

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

This article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage in WW2 era trade magazines, this type-written report on the company [13] in particular gives details on them. Some coverage in Swiss newspapers, this [14] and [15]. Scientific testing on some of their products [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be revised, several links should be added. But the organization's technologies are important and noticeable in the context of the industry.--Assirian cat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement, but there are enough sources to keep the article. [17] is a (fully-available) Google Books result talking about the company's products in the US during WWII, there are dozens of similar references (intermingled with dozens of their ads in magazines in the 20th century) in Google Books. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 21 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!} 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the citeunseen script, this page has 11 reliable sources, but all of them are trivial, especially routine coverage, as Alpha3031 has rightly noticed. If there are any three reliable sources, which satisfies ORGCRIT, there's a possibility of keeping it; otherwise, it's a straight-forward delete. Charlie (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any reference that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 11 June 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 redirect‎ to Xiao-i. ✗plicit 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Yuan Hui

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

sources only or mainly about the company; not enough right now both reliable references and person's notability 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a very interesting figure to me as creator of Xiao-i robot and "China's ChatGPT". his views on AI have been featured extensively by Chinese media (when he spoke at Boao forum for Asia etc; has been attending this prestige event eight years in a row). believe the article can stand as being about an AI expert from China to diversify the discussion. also to mention the patent litigation with Apple is kinda intriguing as well. XiaoMming (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral mainly per nom. Are Caixin articles worth anything? Remsense诉 10:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources I found largely were interviews and about his company. If significant biographical coverage cannot be found, I recommend a redirect to Xiao-i, his company, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/123Aristotle#20 May 2024. 虹易 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 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 redirect‎ to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norconex Web Crawler

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

It's a shame, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the barest of mentions in independent RS. A redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers would probably be the best option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers: per nomination, currently fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage at all from independent sources Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 references listed which from independent sources.

Please also take a look at Mentions in Academic Research portion where academic research with mentions of the Crawler are listed. These are independent sources as well. OhTwadi (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which having barely significant coverage... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see other open source crawlers which have much less in terms of content and/or references and yet are considered fine. One example: MnoGoSearch OhTwadi (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could see, that article was considered "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination". Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 10 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!} 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Medium.com and blogs can’t establish notability. It would be better to redirect this article to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 21 May 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eat This Much

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT at the moment, unfortunately. The CNN article seems borderline, but I could not find anything else meeting even that standard. Broader topic of "meal planning service" might satisfy NLIST though, in which case it may be possible to mention and redirect it there in the future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Websites. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Washington Post, CNN, and Lifehacker sources should lift this over the bar for GNG and NCORP (which applies here; it seems like the product is synonymous with the company). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Lifehacker was not considered reliable back when it was owned by Gawker, which it was back in 2013, which is what the review is dated as, Dclemens1971. It has changed ownership twice since then though, so it might be worth bumping it up to RSN for future articles. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on Lifehacker. And on second look, the CNN source is from "CNN Underscored," which says: "Content is created by CNN Underscored’s team of editors who work independently from the CNN newsroom." No RSN discussions but it does appear to be a promotional platform of questionable independence and reliability. That leaves just WaPo, which is not "multiple," so I'll switch my !vote to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A meal planning app does meet WP:WEB (apps and technology). Following the sources which is applicable to GNG, I have no doubt that there WP:NEXIST and is WP:SUSTAINED too. Having this clearly is a strong move to WP:NCORP. If the CNN were there and it's reliable, WP:N & WP:RS. It does need sourcing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by citing WP:NEXIST, SafariScribe are you implying I should have looked some specific places for my BEFORE that I may have missed? The Yahoo Finance article is from Market Wired, it's a press release. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give me time to analyse the article. I am not at home and will see it off when I reach home. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not much for notability here. Orientls (talk) 17:43, 20 May 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[18] [19] [20] and [21] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [22], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [23], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [24], [25], [26], [27]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 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 delete‎. Given the discussion, there is no clearly fitting redirect target as an ATD Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Generation time. A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate. Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs. However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application. I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation), as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications. I could also live with a delete, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction. If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be. It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation).

I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here. The reason I am not !voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed, as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor. When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Google results are odd. Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology. When I search for reproduction speed, 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.

I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate". I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed. Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target. Mgp28 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article (as written) is about data (not biology), literally a pair of definitions taken directly from a tertiary source. If we're looking at choosing disambiguation pages and unrelated topics for redirect targets, we're much safer nuking the page from orbit. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 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 delete‎. While there was some !voting for merging or keeping, the consensus of editors, when weighing against policies and guidelines, was for deletion. Some suggested salting these titles. I'm not sure salting is appropriate in this circumstance (1 merge, 1 deletion AfD each under a different name) and so am not doing this, but without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator choosing to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

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

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We just did this one and it's back again. !Merge as suggested less than 6mths ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned my position/opinion is on Talk:EcoCute (Japan), please refer.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that previous AfD was closed as merge despite the fact that it appears one editors were advocating for keep, one (nominator) for merge, and one for delete: it seems more like no consensus to me. Appears to have some international coverage from fiz-karlsruhe.de that's already cited in the article. ja:エコキュート has lots of coverage including from Yomiuri, Mainichi, Kyodo, NHK, and more including an award from ja:発明協会. I also found this magazine featuring it. I would also rename to get rid of the parenthetical per WP:PARENDIS. DCsansei (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Re-creating a page that was closed as merge, now with a spurious disambiguation, is not constructive. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the procedural point but that this AfD should still be evaluated on its own merits. I don't think a prior AfD with 3 !votes advocating for 3 different positions should prejudice this discussion. DCsansei (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the previous discussion but have only just now become aware of this one. Also Wikiproject Energy was on the previous article but until now this article had no Wikiprojects on this talk page. Is there any way you could automatically notify people who were watching the previous article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO₂ reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As I argued previously, if I remember right, nowadays this is not sufficiently different from other air source heat pumps to merit a separate article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As I have only now added projects to the talk page will they still be automatically notified of this discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, again~~: History of EcoCute merged after discussion in to Air source heat pump as section, then section deleted/eliminated without any talk, then ECoCute (Jpapan) created. Now EcoCute (Japan) is on AfD/ Merged again. If resulted to mereged in this discuss again and again, can anyone garantee protect/not be eliminated section EcoCute or EcoCute (Japan) by Banners like SfD (Section for Detele) for discussion, KS (Keep this Section) or something else.

Following step 1) - 4) is the editing history.

1) EcoCute, First AfD - EcouCute AfD Discussion resulted as merge on 17 February 2024

2) Then deletedm and merged into Air source heat pump EcoCute deleted, merged as section and redirected on 18 February 2024

3) Sudden Deleted section EcoCute on 27 March 2024 from Article Air source heat pump without any talk/discuss.

4) EcoCute, redirect to Fresh article EcoCute (Japan) on 25 April 2024--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with keep, note that you only get one vote so you should consolidate your argument into one section or re-label one of them as a comment DCsansei (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know nobody can guarantee that a merged section would not be deleted. I agree with @MrOllie that the section was too lengthy and only covered one product. However as this seems to have been very ahead of its time I believe it should be covered briefly in the air source heat pump article along with some other companies and/or products. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted the section because it was a WP:UNDUE problem and looked like an advertisement for one company's product in that context. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls See section of talk page of EcoCute (Japan), '''Manufactures of EcoCute in Japan.''' EcoCute is not one company’s products, all mfg./vender, equally competing in market with named EcoCute, product type of Air source heat pump, as article said, to identify, not confused with other type of Air source heat pump by both seller and customer. I would like all you here to review for my long opinions on other page/section.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a registered trademark. Whether they are manufactured directly by that company or under license from that company is a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of companies produce variety number of models, size, performance and sell/buy price and others. Minimum requirement is both Refrigerant is CO₂ and making hot water, it is named as EcoCute in fair markets. Telling/ display/ indication of word EcoCute in sales promotion is no advantage, it just shows merely type of heat pump, not such as gas nor electric heating.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some other companies and/or variety of products put on market in future, and is comparable or superior, than or equal capability to EcoCute reduce CO₂/ emission and Greenhouse gas, that will be a time to merge these as one type of heat pump in Air source heat pump sections.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and specifically Do not merge. Either it is notable enough for a standalone article or it isn't, and if it isn't it definitely should not be dumped into a general article - Wikipedia isn't a catalog, we should not be writing about individual product offerings in generic articles like that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Top wording changed/edited today. As (The EcoCute is an energy-efficient, type of Air source heat pump and only for water heating as the single hot water supply system, not use for air conditioning or alike.) Millions units sold EcoCute use Air source heat pump, air conditioner use Air source heat pump as well, Refrigerator use Heat pump. Car use Engine. Even trade mark Coca-Cola and Jeep, all these has an article on Wikipedia here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT both this and EcoCute for six months. It is clear that the title-gaming author has no intention of abiding by the result of a merge in this AfD any more than they did in the previous AfD. Any additional attempts to circumvent consensus by title-gaming should be handled with a topic ban. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep + Comment~~: As of article version 05:15, 19 May 2024, JIS JIS C 9220：2018 in section “EcoCute machine basics”, it should be noted that no equivalent total system, EcoCute is 1: heat pump air sourced + 2: hot water storage tank + 3: supply with CO2 Refrigerant. Air source heat pump is describe step 1: only and functional usage is for air conditioner, bathing, underfloor heating and etc., and any conceivable use connecting to room air conditioning unit or to water unit or any unit for purpose. JIS C 9220 standards clearly defined/request associated hot water tank mandatory as single system. I am not sure standard for air source heat pump is, but sure that it may not defined/request associated hot water tank. My “keep” position is rationally with/based reasons, facts and differences.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already !voted above. Owen× ☎ 09:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for quick advice. Noticed the rule.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many air source heat pump systems in Europe include hot water tanks. Certainly Ecocute should be mentioned in the Air source heat pump history section as it was so ahead of its time. It was a great pioneer but nowadays others have caught up. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention would not be amiss (like, one sentence), but making more than 1/3 of the article about Ecocute is far too much. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT/redirect and consider topic-banning Namazu-tron from this topic due to apparent undisclosed COI. DCsansei has found some references that do include significant coverage of the subject in major Japanese publications such as NHK [28] and Yomiuri Shimbun ([29]). However, this coverage is exclusively negative, and the state of the article as written by Namazu-tron does not even begin to incorporate this information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, get the clear sense we're dealing with a COI/UPE here. The tendentious, unrelenting recreation/reversion pattern and the promotional tone suggest, at the very least, a strong POV. Rosguill, please ping me if you take this to AN/I or such. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived NHK and Yomiuri Shimbun site are dated almost 10 years ago. Capable Japanese mfg. seems solve the problems, and no social topics on TV nor Newspaper nowadays, and I’m no intention to hide these topics for edit. My edit thinking/idea for “basic”section seems almost dried up now. I’m seeing Japanese EcoCute (エコキュート) has section health hazards　(健康被害） and etc.(その他), and my plan has to be to add these topic as next step in edit, and I will edit for problem/negative/positive topics by taking time or days.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There appears to be a consensus not to keep, but there's no consensus yet for delete, merge, or redirect. A topic ban is not a valid AfD outcome; that discussion should be had at AN or ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think that the past coverage I dug up constitutes sufficient significant coverage of the subject to pass the GNG but I've edited my vote into a comment. I think merge is the best outcome here given the state of the article. DCsansei (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Do not merge: We do not publish product brochures or sell sheets, but that's what IMHO this pagespace best resembles. For the purposes of this discussion, nothing in this article should be used in a Wikipedia article on air pumps without a critical screening. The behavior of User:Namazu-tron in this process is a separate (but not unrelated) issue. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a report at the COI noticeboard where User:Namazu-tron might explain their fierce loyalty to these two pages. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to created a report, Thank you. --Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Initial version EcoCute in 2008 has full of section “history”, and Air source heat pump did not have section “history” before marge EcoCute into Air source heat pump version 27 January 2024 which keeps afterward section history with almost full content from merged EcoCute nowaday, this is my pleasure in editing. JIS in 2011 revised in 2018 Standards issued with titled C 9220：2018“Residential heat pump water heaters (家庭用ヒートポンプ給湯機)”, which illustrated requisite be to heat pump and water heaters storage tank as the single of heat pump unit + water heater unit with storage tank as a whole. This is new and innovating type of product, named ECoCute though, placed in market in 2001, and record cumulative 9 million units by 2023.“Residential heat pump water heaters” is not a part of Air source heat pump. It is the product appeared consequence of technical/engineering innovation day by day. ISO has not issued standards equivalent to JIS C 9220：2018 yet, hopefully they issue in future in coming years. ISO: Heat pump water heater for hot water supply Wikipedia should accept new product as the article as the internet encyclopedia, when term EcoCute deleted or merged then disappear, it brings reader is hard to find out that term, such consequence is not the purpose of existence of Wikipedia. Articles quality is important, also user friendly/usability is important as donation based entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system. We don’t want to see/hear that AI and/or GPT indicate/speak term/word neither “EcoCute” nor “Residential heat pump water heaters” in Wikipedia.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO standards added, reference only.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:59, 27 May 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.