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.
watch |
This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.
Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Most substantial source cited is a student newspaper article from time of construction. Further searches suggest that neither original construction or recent developments appear to have generated significant independent coverage. All coverage is from university or contractor press releases, or passing mentions as location of various departments. No indication building meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Triptothecottage ( talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable, possibly a vanity article. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:DICTDEF from Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms with zero usage outside of dictionaries. I assume a "talker" refers to a loudspeaker or similar device, but I can't find much info about it. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
This car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that establishes the notability of this blog/website. All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be. Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Netherzone ( talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Originally a redirect to Neural Networks (journal). Article created in its original form by obvious COI editor Internationalneuralnetworksociety, which was reverted to a redirect. Very similar article then created by Hailneum, whose only other contribution is twice-failed AFC submission Draft:International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).
Sources cited in the article are either:
Other coverage of the organisation I was able to locate includes a few passing mentions in newspapers at the time of its founding; and a handful of passing mentions in an "oral history", which is mostly transcripts of interviews with people involved with the organisation.
In short, despite the existence of Stephen Grossberg and the journal, there does not seem sufficient inherent notability to meet either GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
8-year orphaned permastub on a "technology entrepreneur" with a single middling reference. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Tera tix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
[helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readersand exhort prospective customers to
let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executiveand calls her
a transformational leader with a proven track record– you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Tera tix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. ( t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo ( talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. only source in article is completely unrelated to the subject (and looks like spam). search brings up databases. ltb d l ( talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Article recreated after deletion discussion ended in delete. Sources have not changed; all available substantial references are press releases. Recon rabbit 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
1 sentence not notable •Cyberwolf• talk? 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).
I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.
There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.
Ew3234 ( talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 ( talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Non- notable – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).
The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon ( talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Deprod by @ MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads ( talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or notCut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Tera tix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs– i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph:
Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it.This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph:
Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
changing the speaker game for goodand call
each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Tera tix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article.I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.
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.
watch |
This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.
Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Most substantial source cited is a student newspaper article from time of construction. Further searches suggest that neither original construction or recent developments appear to have generated significant independent coverage. All coverage is from university or contractor press releases, or passing mentions as location of various departments. No indication building meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Triptothecottage ( talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable, possibly a vanity article. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:DICTDEF from Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms with zero usage outside of dictionaries. I assume a "talker" refers to a loudspeaker or similar device, but I can't find much info about it. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
This car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that establishes the notability of this blog/website. All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be. Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Netherzone ( talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Originally a redirect to Neural Networks (journal). Article created in its original form by obvious COI editor Internationalneuralnetworksociety, which was reverted to a redirect. Very similar article then created by Hailneum, whose only other contribution is twice-failed AFC submission Draft:International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).
Sources cited in the article are either:
Other coverage of the organisation I was able to locate includes a few passing mentions in newspapers at the time of its founding; and a handful of passing mentions in an "oral history", which is mostly transcripts of interviews with people involved with the organisation.
In short, despite the existence of Stephen Grossberg and the journal, there does not seem sufficient inherent notability to meet either GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
8-year orphaned permastub on a "technology entrepreneur" with a single middling reference. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Tera tix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
[helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readersand exhort prospective customers to
let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executiveand calls her
a transformational leader with a proven track record– you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Tera tix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. ( t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo ( talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
fails general notability guideline. only source in article is completely unrelated to the subject (and looks like spam). search brings up databases. ltb d l ( talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Article recreated after deletion discussion ended in delete. Sources have not changed; all available substantial references are press releases. Recon rabbit 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
1 sentence not notable •Cyberwolf• talk? 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).
I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.
There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.
Ew3234 ( talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 ( talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Non- notable – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).
The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon ( talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Deprod by @ MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads ( talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or notCut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Tera tix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs– i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph:
Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it.This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph:
Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
changing the speaker game for goodand call
each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Tera tix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article.I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.