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

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Step Conference

AfDs for this article:

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

Annual event holds annual meetings. All refs are rather weak in WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Step, which has grown into a really rather prominent regional startup event, is now being held in Dubai, Riyadh, Istanbul and San Francisco. The article's patchy and poorly written, some of the sources verge on the promotional (I agree with the SIRS reservation) and because it's a startup event you'll be skirting WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE - BUT there's enough there for WP:GNG and more out there to add to the article if it can find someone to care for it and give it a good home. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, all of the names of attendees must be deleted. There are a lot of conferences out there that regularly have notable speakers and attendees but it's kind of embarrassing for them just to be name-dropped without appropriate context here. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobira Talkman 900

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

No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nokia products#The Mobira/Nokia series (1982–1990): Not notable enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola V975/V980

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

These cell phones both fail WP:NPRODUCT as they lack coverage in secondary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I have to strongly disagree there, have you even checked the articles properly? The Motorola V710 article already has secondary sources from known sources Gizmodo, CNET, Engadget, and even New York Times, including about a lawsuit against Verizon because of this product. That is certainly not a lack of coverage or lack of notability by any means.

Similarly, the Motorola Accompli 009 has decent coverage from Forbes and some others. The case for V975 may be a bit weaker but it's not too bad. Trust me I've come across many cell phones articles here that are not notable and have a serious lack of coverage (and I agree they shouldn't exist) but these three are not that, at all. Knoxmann (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knoxmann: yes, I did a WP:BEFORE search and looked at the sources in the article. Please assume good faith. Product reviews and stories about litigation are primary sources, not secondary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7th Generation Network

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Looks like its here more of promoting websites/company and content from medium.com. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. --John B123 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Arts Management and Technology

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

Non-notable research center. No independent and in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft MakeCode

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has some mentions but would be better as a merge into one of the many Microsoft product lists such as List of Microsoft software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but I think the subject does have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability on its own. I’m open to improving the article with better references if that helps. A merge could work, but I’d prefer to try building it up a bit first—worth a shot before removing it entirely. Vinizex94🌍 01:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Kukulka

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

Rejected speedy deletion many years ago and never taken to AFD. Creator has the name Kukulka so a COI article originally. KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts too low to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and no other evidence of academic or other notability, even without the apparent COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, low h-factor in a field with medium citation levels. He has been publishing since 1981, and there are no indications that this is going to change in the near future. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete based on his GS profile he does not pass WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 20, which is respectable but not substantially different from the "average professor" at his career stage. --hroest 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NPROF. His awards are minor. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

District heating of Kharkhorin

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

Too narrow a topic for a standalone article, not much significant coverage. I've already merged any relevant content into the Infrastructure section on the Kharkhorin article. Mooonswimmer 09:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notable and have meaningful information. Bleeng (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very specific. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing unique about heating in Mongolian districts. Also delete the other articles in Category:District heating in Mongolia, and then the category itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiveLike VR

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

The article is overly promotional, and the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject. Almost all of the article's references are 404 pages, and upon a quick search, the subject does not seem to be notable per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Likely written entirely or partly using generative AI. Evidence: links are 404s despite the article being written today, access dates are all 2024-3-20 despite the article being written today, searching the source titles in quotes yields nothing, nothing is archived. Anerdw (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 don't exist at the links given. I find nothing else about this enterprise. Likely Hoax as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a PR item seems to confirm it existed [1], but the article as now sourced appears to be using made-up sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My guess is that the non-existent references are hallucinations by an LLM. Madeleine (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable media coverage and failing WP:GNG. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2025 (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.

Nous Research

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

non-notable company that apparently has a lot of money. everything is interviews or press releases. maybe too soon, maybe just never notable. but either way, it's not notable as it stands. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator); company has significant coverage in several articles in VentureBeat (WP:VENTUREBEAT) and Fortune, and therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The articles in VentureBeat particularly are far more than just press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Crypto is questionable at best but it's basically just a rehashed interview. Fortune is also pretty terrible for the same reasons and it's just a press release without saying as much. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that in reverse, Fortune is the interview, Venture Crypto is basically a PR/interview rehashed. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENTUREBEAT is listed as reliable at WP:RSP without exceptions. Has there been some discussion that they are unreliable on crypto news? The articles themselves are in-depth and technical, far more than just rehashed press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Computing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a propaganda piece for a company with no notable achievement that lives of social media hype. Their biggest achievement is a fine-tune of openweight models (Hermes) that barely improves the benchmark scores and has no community relevance outside of their social media circles. Sumosacerdote (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not Criteria for deletion. None of your reasons are valid Criteria per Wikipedia policy. If a company has enough news coverage they would qualify, whether or not they have notable achievements or not. Darkm777 (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you have an account only with 9 edits. I suggest you refrain from participating in AFD voting, until you are more familiar with the policies. The closing admins usually consider a voter's history, so your vote would not have much value. Darkm777 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, if I can express my opinion, I will. I don't care what you think about it.

Also, you're wrong. Coverage on VC media is not "enough coverage". At least it should not be. Or we are going to start a new page for every YCombinator startup now. In fact, this may be good since I could begin creating a lot of pages and accumulate a lot of edits for people like you to care, right? Sumosacerdote (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three VentureBeat articles and one Fortune article establish notability. They are not press releases and I do not believe it is possible to buy articles in top publications like these.Darkm777 (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to buy. Venture Capital (VC) affiliated media will voluntarily[1] spam articles about any startup that gets funding. Do a Google search like "site:venturebeat.com raised" and see for yourself. They make announcements for companies raising as low as $2 million sometimes (on the lower-end of the spectrum for startup fundraising in US). And many of the companies featured there years ago are now extinct. A startup getting featured on VC media is not a good criteria for notoriety.

[1] I'm assuming some goodwill here, possibly not the case. Sumosacerdote (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Turnbull

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Computing, and Software. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - very poorly written. TNT? I'm not !voting because he's a friend of a friend. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources merely confirm books he's written. Lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2025 (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.

Marvell Software Solutions Israel

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its parent Marvell Technology per ATD and PRESERVE. Classroom example of excessive fragmentation. Thanks for nominating! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - Although it has since been deleted, the notability flag on the article was only placed on it on 17 May, a day before this AfD was initiated. It would be better for interested editors to be given time to improve the article first in response to the notability or other concerns, without imminent deletion hanging over the article. The notability flag should be restored, and if the article isn't improved in a meaningful amount of time, then the AfD can (and should) be reinitiated. Coining (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Marvell Technology, which is a good target for this non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly, fails WP:NCORP due to lack of significant in-depth independent coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this company isn't completely notable, but it's better to put it in context with its parent company's article than delete it outright. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the merge into Marvell Technology to at least have it as a mention and add more context for the more well known main company it is related with.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marvell Technology as above per WP:ATD, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

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

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, and Germany. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an EN Version of the German Wiki post that provides all sources. Boatschafter (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that, and most of the references cited there are either to UAV DACH's own website (i.e. not WP:INDEPENDENT of the source), or to registries or other places mentioning the group without providing in-depth significant coverage of the company, or at best some run-of-the-mill routine coverage about the group's elections. Java Hurricane 08:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital signal processing and machine learning

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

Was declined numerous times at AfC, until the article's creator simply moved it into mainspace. This is more of a personal essay, not an article. As per [WP:NOTESSAY]]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this topic is too important for deletion. Given the rise of ai hype and under analysis of hardware requirements, you can understand why it may have been made in the first place. 98.144.73.117 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete more of a speculative (and rather padded) essay than an encyclopedia article. The lack of mention in the main DSP article is also telling. It wouldn't surprise me that AI gets directed at DSP, but at this point we don't need this sprawling reflection. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie

AfDs for this article:

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

This entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 21 May 2025 (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 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [2] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [3] - and La Vanguardia - [4] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of its media coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and WP:RSNOI. Fails WP:NCORP AndySailz (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl car

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

Article fails notability guidelines and match original research; content may belong in a broader automotive marketing article or as part of a manufacturer's page. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article is short on examples and may need to be at a better title, one thing it is not short on is sourcing. This concept of cars that are associated with one gender or another of the purchaser is well-established as a legit topic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject matter remains current and additional reliable sources are easily found with a search; the article can have related marketing and gender discrepancy issues incorporated in expansion. LovelyLillith (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket boots

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

fails WP:GNG. The refs are copies of the same sensationalist article. I didnt find and native Russian sources, and English sources for the term are something else. --Altenmann >talk 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find russian sources: [5] [6] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the references is a bylined article from The New York Times. The South African article is credited to Sapa/DPA, which I think means that Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable news agency, wrote the article and it was distributed in South Africa by South African Press Association, also reliable. I hoped to find the original DPA article by searching for Raketenstiefel, but only found uses of the term in the context of goblin rocket boots in World of Warcraft. Still, we have multiple in-depth references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything in the English sources to support the use of the term "rocket boots". (And it's certainly incorrect from a technical perspective; based on the description, these boots are much more akin to piston engines than rockets.) The Times article avoids using any name for the boots at all, and the Dispatch article refers to them once each as "quickwalkers" and "fuel-powered superboots"; do the Russian sources give these contraptions any particular name? Omphalographer (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a real product and didn't have name, usually it was called "Сапоги-скороходы" - in quotes - the Russian counterpart of Seven-league boots. Actually, it was a good question. Now I noticed the bureaucratic name of a model of the device, "устройство механизации бега" ("device for the mechanization of running", "run mechanization device") and this Russian term gives more hits, mostly anecdotes, probably not original. --Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (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.

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, hoping to have additional discussion for whether keep/delete or other to have a clear consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These keep votes are from new users where there's obviously some offsite discussion to bring users here. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]