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 redirect‎ to John Deere Model M#John Deere 430. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere 430C

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

Declined at WP:AFC here Draft:John Deere 430 Crawler recreated in main space, using AI poorly sourced non notable product. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Iowa. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are sufficient failures of WP:V, a key tenet of Wikipedia, that make this wholly unsuitable to be an article. There is no point in sending it to Draft, an essentially similar draft exists already. I cannot see what makes this pass WP:GNG either. The tone can be edited, but the promotional wording hurts the senses. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [Struck delete !vote, but not my oponion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)][reply]
Per @Mangoe redirect, and merge a few words into John Deere Model M#John_Deere_430 where a picture of the crawler version exists. This is a pragmatic solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My error. The picture if of a 420. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to John Deere Model M#John_Deere_430 where this crawler variant could be mentioned. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I agree, I don't believe this article even gets to a notability issue because it is both a failure of WP:V and WP:NOTSTATS. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, to the point of WP:N, I want to get it down that WP:TRADES says "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability." Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 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 keep‎. Nobody has rebutted the relevance of Cunard's sources. Sandstein 09:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roboboa

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

I'm not convinced this toy robot meets WP:GNG. Article isn't much more than an unsourced summary of its functionality and has seen little improvement since 2008. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage other than brief mentions of its announcement in 2007. MidnightMayhem 07:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only get two hits in Gnews. [1] I'm not sure that's a RS, but it was featured at CES, then appears to have faded away. Lack of sourcing. Non-notable item. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Hong Kong, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nichols, Larry (2008-07-25). "Robot pets do not poop". Philadelphia Gay News. Vol. 32, no. 30. p. 25. EBSCOhost 33550317.
  The abstract notes: "The article evaluates robotic pets from WowWee Robotics including Roboboa, the Alive series robots and the Robopanda."
2. Stone, Adam (2007-05-11). "Everything's Cool". Baltimore Jewish Times. Vol. 296, no. 2. pp. S22 – S23. ProQuest 222780229.
  The article notes: "Your Next Snake We promised you a snake, and now we deliver New from WowWee is the Roboboa, a robotic serpent that dances. Yep. They finally made a robot dancing snake. It's a beautiful world we live in. You can control the snake's 40 movements with a remote, or just crank the tunes and watch it dance to the music. It's also an iPod speaker, alarm clock and motion detector. We would just like to repeat these words one more time: Robotic, Dancing. Snake. For the robot-dancing-snake lover in all of us, could the world be any more cool? "
3. Schwarz, Reuben (2007-09-04). "Slinky bed mate". The Press. p. T7. ProQuest 314888094.
  The article notes: "Here's an alarm clock with a difference. Roboboa is alarm, reading light and electronic pet all rolled into one. It explores, it parties, it even guards your desk by shooting lasers (actually just a noise) at anything that comes into view. It also interacts with WooWees other toys, like Robopet and Robosapien, and probably scares the heck out of your pets. And it'll be that much harder sleeping in knowing a robot snake is staring down at you."
4. "These are the droids you're looking for: WowWee Roboboa". Stuff. 2008-01-01. Factiva FFUTS00020071207e4110000j.
  The article notes: "You’re probably wondering how this android snake gets about. In fact, Roboboa glides across flat surfaces with a curious moonwalk action courtesy of rotating cylinder segments. It all makes sense when you put him into Party Mode, whereupon he squirms around to his own disco tunes and puts on a little light show."
5. Le Bourlot, Éric (November 2007). "L'invasion des robots jouets" [The invasion of toy robots]. Science et Vie micro [fr] (in French). p. 11. Retrieved 2025-07-13 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Toujours inspirés par les travaux du chercheur au chapeau Mark Tilden, le Roboboa a la forme d'un ser- pent et le Roboquad est un drôle d'alien à quatre pattes. Tous deux peuvent se dépla-cer, repérer des obstacles. Mais attention, malgré ce qu'annonce Wow Wee, ils ne disposent pas d'une réelle intelligence artificielle, et si on peut leur inculquer certains comportements basi-ques, ils n'évoluent pas avec le temps."
  From Google Translate: "Still inspired by the work of hat-wearing researcher Mark Tilden, Roboboa is shaped like a snake, and Roboquad is a strange four-legged alien. Both can move and spot obstacles. But beware, despite what Wow Wee claims, they don't have real artificial intelligence, and while they can be taught certain basic behaviors, they don't evolve over time."
6. "Свестрана змиа" [Versatile snake]. Politikin Zabavnik (in Serbian). 2007-11-30. Retrieved 2025-07-13 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Свестрана змиа Argos Roboboa Стручнаци куе „Argos" осмислили су необичну роботизовану направу ко je савитльива попут змие да би била што прилагодливиа разним наменама и назвали су je Roboboa. Склопльена од дигиталних уреаа, ова „купна змиа" лако може да промени облик и изврши чак четрдесет едну радну. Тако, рецимо, Roboboa може да се користи као лампа за читанье, будилник, поуздани чувар кои бележи сваки покрет и о томе одмах обавештава, али и као саиграч кои добро прати ритам музике. Оваква свестрана направа заиста je пожельна у сваком домапинству. Може да се купи по цени од око 160 евра."
  From Google Translate: "Versatile snake Argos Roboboa Experts from the house "Argos" have designed an unusual robotic device that is flexible like a snake in order to be as adaptable as possible for various purposes and have called it Roboboa. Assembled from digital devices, this "snake" can easily change shape and perform as many as forty-one tasks. For example, Roboboa can be used as a reading lamp, an alarm clock, a reliable guard that records every movement and immediately informs about it, but also as a teammate that follows the rhythm of the music well. Such a versatile device is truly desirable in every household. It can be purchased for a price of around 160 euros."
7. Melanson, Donald (2007-10-15). "Roboboa slithers its way to the USA". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2021-01-23. Retrieved 2025-07-13.
  The article notes: "While WowWee's dancing Roboboa robot has already made its way into a few select parts of the world, those in the US have so far had a considerable harder time getting their hands on one. That looks to have now changed in a big way, however, as the so-called "alien with attitude" is now available directly from WowWee for an even $100."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Roboboa to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfied with the sources found by Cunard. SongRuyi (talk) 16:54, 22 July 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. The proposed merge is broadly supported, but I see no consensus against retaining the page in its now-improved form. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible tank

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

Tagged unsourced since 2010. Cannot find sources beyond passing mentions. Roast (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Roast (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUNREFERENCED is not a valid argument for deletion, and the article does have a reference - it's just poorly formatted in the "External links" area. That said, this doesn't appear to be notable for a stand-alone article, and thus a merge to Storage tank may be a good option here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per TheBushRanger. NavjotSR (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have improved article with two sources which are significant enough to pass WP:GNG. It's a unique material and is gaining widespread acceptance and use including by astronauts in the space. It is also used in health and agriculture. Patre23 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into storage tank. This could become notable, but its not enough on its own yet. Reminds me of brewing equipment and brewing, a recent afd.Metallurgist (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more input on whether the sources recently added to the article satisfy WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a (weak) Keep due to the added sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into storage tank. I think this is a new, interesting technology but, due to the sources, it might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON since it does not have the notability per WP:SIGCOV to warrant its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by Patre23. Passes WP:HEY for such a subject and is distince enough that a merge does not make sense to me here. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY.--FreaksIn 17:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge into storage tank as this is rather a belaboring of the fact that people have been storing liquids in rubberized bladders almost from the dawn of vulcanization, and used animal skins before that. THis can easily fit into the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 25 July 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Comaford

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

PROD declined by IP. Fails WP:GNG. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Technology. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also talk page for some discussion on sourcing. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she just squeaks through.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Washington Post		Passing mention.	✘ No
Inc.			✔ Yes
The Art Of			✘ No
"Nerds"			✘ No
Podcast			? Unknown
100 conversations for career success	No affiliation with Comaford. Secondary report of the original article by Comaford.		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Cremastra (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Inc. story is a non-staff opinion piece, not a reliable source. Random podcasts generally aren't reliable either. And "The Art Of" is a corporation that is obviously going to promote people who write for them; the site doesn't even indicate who wrote the bio. Pinging @Cremastra. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Inc. story can also been seen as an interview, which usually do not confer notability. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be seen as an interview, but I don't think that's the right interpretation. It quotes an interview – a primary source – and discusses it. Therefore it is a secondary source. I don't see how it being an opinion piece automatically makes it unreliable, and the author is a regular contributor to the magazine. As regards The Art Of, I suppose the company could be seen to have a COI with the subject, which would compromise their independence, so I'll update the source table there. The podcast's reliability is unclear. I don't think we should assume that little-known sources are unreliable by default, but I'll change that to a question mark. Cremastra (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another source to the table. Her books are also widely referred to and were bestsellers, so she may also meet WP:NAUTHOR. Cremastra (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 conversations source claims that Christine Comaford is a "contributor," so I don't think it can be considered independent. I'm still not very sure about the interview, but you do have a point. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Most podcasts are WP:SPS and thus unreliable by default. Opinion pieces are usually not reliable per WP:NEWSOPED, and I'd guess Inc. contributors in general are unreliable along the lines of WP:FORBESCON. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are 2 good sources, but this discussion further shows the deprecation of all the media. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: changing my vote to neutral. This one's pretty borderline. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:10, 22 July 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EdTech Impact

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Just some directory listings and brief profiles. Nothing really in-depth or independent to show the company is notable. Junbeesh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails WP:NORG. Nothing in the references to show that it is even a promising organization that could pass notability criteria in the near future. Mekomo (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not reliable, fails WP:ORG. Baqi:) (talk) 06:34, 13 July 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 merge‎ to Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's third uranium enrichment site

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

WP:NOPAGE. There are no details available about this site and it is not operational yet. This content is already present at Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites. Astaire (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Iran. Astaire (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain as a redirect. -- Iri1388 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites per WP:CRYSTAL. मल्ल (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON and above, once an article is created (if) then redirect to that instead. Easternsahara (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the 1 paragraph into Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites. Not enough for an article yet. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect until a WP:SPLIT is justified as per all of the above Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2nd paragraph of Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites already referencing third site. Not enough for an article yet.

Eulersidentity (talk) 07:15, 15 July 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virgio

(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. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly passes WP:ORGCRIT. There is in-depth coverage about the subject in reliable sources such as Economic Times1, Economic Times2 Entrepreneur, TechCrunch, Inc42, and TV9 several others. So I believe this should sufficiently meet the requirements for WP:NCORP as well. All the best! Baqi:) (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has been widely covered by reliable and independent sources. As per sources provided by Baqi, offer significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. A quick Google search also shows a strong media presence. Monhiroe (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable for a Wikipedia article under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, also the significance of the award cannot be refuted.Zuck28 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Freeman

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

Fails GNG. This was PRODded before but it was never deleted for some reason, and an IP silently removed the template. Has seen some on-and-off COI editing over the years. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch is straight to his personal website, then linkedin, then other non-RS. Nothing in Gnews about this person, some links to articles he's written. Long way from showing notability though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree ^ Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:42, 13 July 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netcore Cloud

(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. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is notable per NCORP, 'cause it has several reliable sigcov references, including Times of India bootstrap story about [2], Business Standard [3], BusinessMatter [4] while Economic Times also have good overview and independent thoughts on the topic. Insillaciv (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my online search suggests, the company is old and GNG-eligible as it has significant coverage in CNBC (Tv18)Economic Times, Business Day and other. Interestingly, it also received a critical (not pleasant) highlight about how Airtel India blocked Netcore services in article Airtel blocks Netcore services (Business Standard). It should be added to the page. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above-mentioned sources satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The Times of India story is a PTI press release as stated at the bottom of the article. The two Economic Times articles are trivial acquisition announcements. It takes roughly five seconds to see that the Business Matters article is a self-published puff piece on "our illustrious journey". The Business Standard report does not count toward notability per WP:ILLCON. Yuvaank (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting the articles from Wikipedia is not only the solution. I found Vanguard, Business Standard and Channel Life. Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard and Channel Life sources are routine announcements. The Business Standard article is an interview as claimed by the subject. Yuvaank (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can consider Interview, if it is in-depth and from reliable source. Raj Shri21 (talk) 10:07, 26 July 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 keep‎. according to the keep argumentation and the sources found and assessed (non-admin closure) Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recykal

(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. Also, being ranked does not necessarily imply notability. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP before and the current number of reliable sources with significant coverage satisfies WP ncorp. Among these sources is a staff report by Forbes [5]; the company is on the top of Fortune and WEF lists, and another reliable link is Indian Times [6] and [7], Hindu Times and more. --Killviconiborki (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meets NCORP, and the article has quite good media references with in-depth and focused coverage, including niche industry eco-media and big global, for example Inc42. Gbo 65 boi (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the newly cited sources and the overall notability established by multiple reliable media outlets. --Vjiralb (talk) 11:01, 14 July 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. Views seem evenly divided between the two sides. A merge discussion on the relevant Talk page or portal may yield more conclusive results. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI mysticism

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

The concept of "AI mysticism" does not seem to be a notable one, the three sources here do not really evidence that, and are rather dubious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Religion, and Technology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page just needs more sourcing in general as I do believe this is a notable concept. As of 2 days ago, CNN also just released a segment and article on this highlighting this phenomenon. ABC (or NBC I cant remember at the moment lol) also made a segment on this. I am interested in this topic and so is the broader public and prominent news agencies. જ⁀➴ (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone believing whatever an LLM says is not mysticism and we're not here to ratify that as an actual concept through mediawashing. Nathannah • 📮 17:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a relevant article about the effects of AI. I do think this will eventually merit a full article, but it doesnt seem to be there yet. I dont know enough of the subject matter to suggest a destination, but I think this would be a useful subsection somewhere. Metallurgist (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, I suggest Chatbot psychosis as a target. 3df (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I am just a lowly IP editor, I concur with this merge suggestion. 71.186.128.210 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more ideas about a potential merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While sources in the article are poor, there are several academic sources that seem consistent with the topic, see [8] ; [9], [10], [11]. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per editor Cyclopia's reasoning and found academic topic evidence. I added the {{more citations needed}} template to the article. 5Q5|^✉ 10:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the sources provide enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. The concept is interesting and certainly seems notable.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:21, 22 July 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 keep‎. Despite some poor argumentation, I see clear consensus here that there is too much material for either of the proposed mergers to be workable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the metre

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

Redirect to History of the metric system, merging small amounts that aren't essentially duplicated or better covered there.

This article is functionally a fork of History of the metric system, which includes pretty much everything this article might if fully developed. This article's also exceptional; we don't have "History of" articles for other units like the kilogram, second or ampere.

The forking is something of a wiki-historical accident; this article began as "Redefinition of the Metre in 1983", a redefinition in terms of the speed of light which at least one editor thought very foolish. This article may have been created to corral that issue but long arguments about it continued across many articles leading to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, this article narrowly survived an AfD but its scope was soon expanded to History of the metre, and activity on this article died down. Meanwhile History of the metric system was created, continued to be developed, and was a GA until recently. It already has much well-written well-sourced content about the history of the metre itself and its context, but broadly speaking without the digressions that this article has sometimes included.

As this isn't a new article, it seems (I've not done this before) that WP:ATD-R applies: discuss on talk page first, but if consensus is lacking, go to AfD for discussion with the wider community. Opinion at History of the metre#Redirect to History of the metric system? was divided 2:2 and so though long discussion there just might reach unanimity either way, it seems better to come here as WP:ATD-R's preferred venue. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Engineering, and Technology. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be merged to Metre#History of definition, not redirected to History of the metric system. I actually don't see much duplication between the two history articles at all, I see two distinct topics with very different content. There is a lot of metre-specific history that isn't tied to the metric system as a whole and this could even be expanded. Much of History of the metre#From standard bars to wavelength of light would be out of place at History of the metric system. But for now at least, metre is relatively short and so its history could be merged there, if not kept separate if expanded. I agree with StarryGrandma on the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both history articles mentioned in nom and by reywas. Good arguments made, and Im always happy to see the metric "system" get a thumping. Metallurgist (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Regardless of the reason History of the metre was created, historically the meter holds a special place in the metric system. Indeed, the other unit of the historical system, the kilogram was originally defined using the meter. Here is a link to a source p. 14. Metric System does not take that in account and gives explainations which correspond to the International System of Units (SI). The second was only added to the system following a proposal by Gauss in 1832 to base a system of absolute units on the three fundamental units of length, mass and time (see Centimetre–gram–second system of units). Charles Inigo (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why are we even having this discussion? When we had the 'vital articles' rating system, what would this be at? A 2? Even a 1?

The history of the metric system is huge, an article like this is entirely appropriate. Especially given that the historical context of the metric units for length and mass are so different, the length standard itself having driven huge advances in Earth geodesy. This wasn't the British Imperial system where they simply sat down one day to arbitrarily define each and every unit according to some convenient aspect of the king, the metric system of 'just basing the metre on the size of the Earth' then needed the first serious efforts to measure the size and shape of the Earth itself.

This is just the sort of article that WP should (and seemingly can) deliver good content on. Back in the days when Wikipedia was 'that place that made the internet not suck', this was the type of article that made it so. Now we just seem more concerned in finding pointless reasons to make WP worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a massively notable topic of obvious and utmost importance in the history of physics. Sources dedicated to the topic are abundant [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] The metric system is a wider and different topic than the metre, and a merge on either History of the metric system or Metre would make the articles unwieldy long. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more detail here than is appropriate for history of the metric system, and merging with metre would overwhelm that article with historical information. There's certainly scope for three separate articles, here, just as, e.g., France, History of France and History of Europe are separate: the three articles have different focus and different levels of detail. Dricherby (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Keep as a redirect. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 22:22, 13 July 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zylog Systems

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

The article, which was created by a now-banned user, fails WP:NCORP. It also seems that the company was shut down due to fraud in 2019. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, India, and New Jersey. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a directory of corporations, criminal or otherwise Bearian (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing is significant, corpdepth does not appear to be there in WP:SIRS. Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORPfrom WP:BEFORE result indicating no significance to keep this here. Patre23 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above, nothing to salvage here. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:31, 14 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PayChangu

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

Unclear notability. The majority of the current sources ([17][18][19][20][21][22][23]) appear to be paid news. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Technology. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trending fintech company in Malawi that everyone is talking about the sources are from reliable sources like Malawi24.com, nyasatimes and international sources Kalotiking (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The available coverage consists mostly of brief award mentions and promotional articles (Malawi Nyasa Times, Malawi24, Showbiz Uganda, Fintech Magazine Africa). These are lightly edited press releases or sponsored content rather than significant independent coverage. No reliable, in-depth secondary sources have been found to establish notability under WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am a Malawian writer, and I can confirm that this is currently one of the most trending if not the number one fintech companies in Malawi. I believe it deserves a Wikipedia article. @Tumbuka Arch is a fellow Malawian editor who might be able to help verify this.
Kalotiking (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalotiking. We need sources, not words, that show that this company is notable. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses the company’s partnership with a notable bank, which can be verified on the official website of Centenary Bank Malawi:
^[1]

It also mentions awards the company has won. This is supported by another article from National Bank of Malawi (NBM), one of the country’s largest banks:

^[2] The award mentioned is among the most recognized in the country and is based on customer votes, which demonstrates the company’s notability^[3]. Furthermore, the sources used in the article are not just Malawian blogs, but include reputable news outlets and official bank websites Kalotiking (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Malawi is very small country it's just getting started with fintech for someone interested in tech like myself my goal is to make sure i take part in writing articles about Malawian fintech and contribute here Kalotiking (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Inherently promotional in-tone and all sources seem to be paid news articles as previously mentioned. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: promotional tone can be fixed. The company is notable given that it is the only of its kind in the country. Here, the company is quoted "a pioneering fintech company" by Malawi24 and by Nyasa Times here where it is being referred to as "Fintech giant." In 2025 here, company won Firm of the Year at ICTAM Awards surpassing Airtel's service and other major firms. These are not so-called awards as awards are usually associated with effort and not "paid" promo. I could farther found this, little of this, that provides WP:GNG. While I wouldn't count "partnerships" as company's notability, mentions and describing it as a major leading Fintech in the entire country is enough to give a glimpse that company is notable. This can be used to sustain an article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm giving this discussion a bit more time so that editors can evaluate sources brought to the discussion by User:Tumbuka Arch.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is notable in Malawi and is the first of its kind in the region. An article from a Malawian government website supports this here,The Malawi News Agency does not publish paid promotional content. Additionally, platforms such as Intelligent Fintech have recognized the company’s innovation—for example, here These sources indicate the company’s significance and impact within its industry. LapelKing (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Malawian government webpage is not opening for me. And the Intelligent Fintech article appears to be paid news, not to mention published very recently on July 7. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LapelKing. I suspect you of sockpuppetry. I have opened a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalotiking. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fancy Refrigerator,

The Gov article is opening fine on my end. Have you conducted any research on the company before making a judgment? I wouldn’t have written the article if the company wasn’t notable in the region. Platforms like Nyasa Times and ITWeb Africa do not engage in paid promotions. Kalotiking (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that those platforms do not engage in promotions. Anyhow, the articles from Nyasa Times you initially used ([24][25]) are very promotional by nature. And the one from ITweb Tumbuka Arch brought up appear to be a press release ([26]). While these sources support what are stated in the article, I do not believe they constitute independent, significant coverage, which, ideally, should be multiple sources that cover the company in detail.

As for that Malawi News Agency article ([27]), which I can access now, it appears to cover the same publicity event as one of the Malawi24 articles ([28]). Like the forementioned, I do not believe that this source constitute a source that meets WP:ORGCRIT. It is neither detailed nor sufficiently independent of the subject.

And as for the other source added by LapelKing ([29], this is obviously a paid news article. The fact that it postdates the discussion suggests that someone paid for it after the AfD was initiated. This is unacceptable and I suggest we disregard it. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 20:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator so what you’re saying is, if a company wins an award or partners with banks or launches a new product, it’s not worth media coverage unless they pay for it? 😅 That kinda feels unfair especially in a country like Malawi where fintech is just starting to grow and PayChangu is one of the first companies doing it seriously.

Like the sources are actually reporting on real stuff first fintech PSP to do bank collections, first to launch instant transfers, winning ICT film of the year [30]and those partnerships with banks like Centenary bank [31] aren’t small either. These are well known institutions, and when a fintech partners with them, it’s a big deal locally. That’s why the press wrote about it.

But just because the company is early-stage or based in a smaller market doesn’t mean it lacks notability. The article is based on coverage that’s actually independent and relevant. Kalotiking (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator you have brought this to AfD yourself, can you wait for other editors to weigh in too? As for @Kalotiking, can you avoid responding to every comment (unless badly needed) and leave it to others to decide. Thanks.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator so what you’re saying is, if a company wins an award or partners with banks or launches a new product, it’s not worth media coverage unless they pay for it? 😅 That kinda feels unfair especially in a country like Malawi where fintech is just starting to grow and PayChangu is one of the first companies doing it seriously. I said nothing of the sort. Do not make a strawman argument.

The presence of reporting is not enough to show notability. The sources have to be independent of the subject and contain significant coverage, which is not case with these sources Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:36, 13 July 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 merge‎ to Amy Webb selectively. Strong, P&G-based arguments on both sides. After almost a month, I see a rough consensus against retaining this as a standalone article, with support for the merge as an ATD. If the merge isn't completed within one month, feel free to WP:BLAR the page, after which merging may continue from the page's history. Owen× ☎ 07:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Intelligence

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

There is inadequate sourcing to establish notability for this concept, which can probably best be summed up (albeit rather uncharitably) as "big picture LinkedIn-style thought leadership"—or, even less charitably, it is a thing someone made up but for business executives.

The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

The Hesham Allam source cites a wholly different source for an idea referred to as 'living intelligence' (namely someone called Anna Bacchia) that predates the FTSG/Webb/Jordan formulation. It is also mentioned only in passing—not significant for the purpose of the notability guidelines.

The Robitzski source predates the invention of the concept, and thus does not do anything to establish notability.

The 'Analytics Insight' source looks extremely unreliable. According to their bio, the author of the piece "excels at crafting clear, engaging content", apparently. Last week, on Friday, they produced seven articles for 'Analytics Insight' in one day, on topics as wide-ranging as staying at the top of Google search results, knowing the difference between OLED and QLED televisions, the best travel credit cards, discounts on Android phones, smart mattress covers, and using AI to generate video. An optimist might commend this industrious work ethic; cynics might draw the conclusion that this feels like a low quality content farm (the massive flashing adverts for ropey looking cryptocurrencies don't help).

The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing.

The Inc. article by Aiello does look to be reliable, and independent, and provides significant coverage, but probably isn't enough alone as "multiple sources are generally expected" (WP:GNG).

There was another source listed which I removed. It's generated by Perplexity AI. Literally, just AI generated text. It's here (and on the Wayback Machine, but the overuse of JavaScript makes that version unusable). It is pretty much a case study of AI confabulation.

The AI generated text reads: Amy Webb and Gary Marcus, two prominent figures in AI research and forecasting, offer contrasting perspectives on AI's trajectory in 2025. Webb predicts a convergence of key technologies, including AI, biotech, and advanced sensors, leading to what she terms "living intelligence". At this point, there is an inline footnote which points to an article titled The great AI scaling debate continues into 2025 from a website called The Decoder. Said article does not discuss "living intelligence" or Webb. The Decoder article talks about Gary Marcus and AI scaling, so the AI generated source is at least half right. To be fair, the Perplexity source does go on to point to a podcast interview which... might establish notability if you squint a bit.

So, in terms of sourcing that establishes notability, we have an Inc article and a handful of podcasts/interviews. But the convergence of AI-generated text and the somewhat spammy promotion of futurist/thought leadership suggests this should be deleted (or possibly merged/redirected into Amy Webb). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Technology. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging User:BD2412 as the AfC reviewer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, indeed, "a thing someone made up but for business executives." Honestly, anything made with "sources" from Perplexity or other slop machines should be deleted on moral grounds. They're the opposite of reliable; using them is by definition not being here to build an encyclopedia, and the results should be treated accordingly. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last user, WP:MADEUP, and the use of AI-generated sources, which is a flaming red line for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep or restore to draft. I was pinged to this discussion and am mulling this over carefully. I don't think that Amy Webb being the coiner of the term is disqualifying of a source for which she is the author. It's not like she's selling "Living Intelligence" as a product for her enrichment. She is an academic in the field, and her opinions in the field carry weight. I have never seen Harvard Business Review questioned for its reliability. With this along with the Inc. article, I would expect that if this is a notable concept (and the article describes something that certainly should be), then additional sources may be found. BD2412 T 01:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Two points: the Harvard Business Review do publish sponsored content on behalf of corporate partners. Some of which is emabrassingly mediocre research that would get a failing grade as student coursework. The source in question doesn't seem to fall into this category, thankfully.

Also, at risk of being excessively cynicial, the thinktank/thought leadership world are selling a product. Taking a vague trend of New Stuff, and self-publishing a report that gives it a label is exactly what goes on in futurist/thought leader circles in order to promote yourself so corporations and others will pay you for consulting and speaking gigs etc. I drew an analogy with WP:MADEUP becuase hand-wavy futurist thought is often "a PDF of a thing I made up on my own website" rather than getting subjected to peer review. Whether the idea actually is notable is a question for other people to determine, hence why our notability guidelines look to independent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Amy Webb being the coiner of the term" is "disqualifying" of any source that she wrote, insofar as it means those sources are the opposite of independent. A source that Webb wrote isn't completely useless for all purposes, but it carries zero weight in evaluating the notability (in the Wikipedian sense) of the concept.

To paraphrase Tom Morris' second paragraph above: a label is a brand is a product. We absolutely should treat a thinktank/thought-leader person writing about their own label in the same way that we would treat a business owner writing about their own business. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These concerns are not alien to me, which is why I would support restoration to draft as a WP:ATD. BD2412 T 03:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Confused about the Perplexity AI issue address above but not sure if it matters. I did find this from The Week but that only makes two if you take Inc. into consideration. I would not fully discount the HBR just because she is the coiner of the phrase; however, being that there is not a lot of other references talking about it, I am not sure we can consider her the expect on the topic either.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify? Discuss.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than a trivial amount of coverage in journals [32] discusses the concept. I suppose we could draft this for clean up, but the topic appears notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: In the nomination statement, I already explained how the Rouleau and Levin article isn't relevant. The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing. Rouleau and Levin are not using "living intelligences" in the way Webb and Jordan are, and it does not establish that Webb and Jordan's formulation is notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it was getting kind of long and I gave up reading it. Would it be worth draftifying it? I can't understand the "thing" the article is about ... Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm broadly open to all options: delete, draftify or merge and redirect to Amy Webb. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Oaktree b and CNMall41. I think we now have enough to meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding The Week. The quotes in The Week are derived from the HBR and Inc articles, and the FTI report. The second paragraph is mostly quotes from the HBR article. The third, fifth and seventh paragraphs mostly consists of quotes from the Inc article. The fourth paragraph quotes from the report. The sixth paragraph is a pointer to a blog post by another futurist consultant pitching for work that concludes with "Let's discuss your strategy for shaping this future, reach out to discuss." The Week has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in 2020, and the observation their that articles "are composites of pieces from elswehere" still rings true. An illustration of this: this article about "how generative AI is changing the way we write and speak". It is a composite that cobbles together a piece from The Atlantic, The Verge, The Conversation and Los Angeles Magazine without really adding much. It's not quite churnalism, and it is not merely aggregation, but it isn't great. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amy Webb - This topic seems like it can happily live as a subsection on Amy Webb until it gets sufficient independent coverage to motivate its own article. Not opposed to draftification, but merging seems like a better editorial outcome here. The concept has no coverage that doesn't prominently feature Webb. Suriname0 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for a merge to Amy Webb?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any text worth merging. It's all uninspired prose, backed by mediocre/unsuitable sources. What's good enough to save? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Since our earliest days, we have not published original content; "made up in a day" and "no AI, thank you" are just by-products of that basic rule. This would at a minimum have to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yes, we exclude things made up on Wikipedia, but not things made up in the real world and published there. Everything is made up at some point, Marxism, Christianity, theory of relativity. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Amy Webb, as it seems to be an idea of hers that can be described using reliable sources, but it doesn’t seem to have much of an existence independent of her. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Amy Webb per Suriname0 and Barnards.tar.gz. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to justify its own article. Some of the Overview section can be merged using the Inc. source at least. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a fad concept not published in reliable journals, per other above comments. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Relies almost entirely on primary or non-independent material (Webb’s own HBR piece, a self-published FTI report, an AOL interview) plus AI-generated or content-farm mentions, so the term lacks significant independent coverage and fails WP:GNG. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient significant coverage in terms of subject's analysis and review. [33] An in-depth review on the topic by Harvard Business Review, Why “Living Intelligence” Is the Next Big Thing. [34], Other good and independent article on the topic by AOL, Exploring "Living Intelligence," a Merging of AI, Sensors, and Biotech. [35] This research article written by Nicolas Rouleau & Michael Levin is in itself Significant, Discussions of machine versus living intelligence need more clarity. Raj Shri21 (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raj Shri21 These sources have all been thoroughly discussed above. Quoting from the nomination: The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the aforementioned references are discussed above; yet, according to the policy, these sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV. This is my perspective. Raj Shri21 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The Nature source—as I stated in the nomination—addresses an entirely different topic. The HBR and AOL articles are not independent of the subject. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 27 July 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 redirect‎ to International Organization for Standardization#ISO divisions. The article is 10 years old, draftification here, as mentioned, would be back door deletion. This technical committee is listed at the ISO article, redirection there. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 262

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

Not finding WP:SIGCOV in independent sources; my WP:BEFORE search turns up plenty of non-independent sources (e.g. [36][37]), but nothing substantial. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Organization for Standardization or Draftify as as ATD, as it is, lacks citations, even contents are yet to be filled, barely a stub.Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorraine Crane: I'd oppose a redirect, given it is not mentioned at the target. Generally, WP:ATD-I is only applicable when there is a good chance of improvement and/or there is a good reason to believe it will be notable soon (e.g. it is an event schedule to occur soon). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If draftification is all we are going to do, I'd support that. But I'll be shocked if that amounts to anything more than WP:G13. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:36, 6 July 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. There has been no meaningful participation in nearly three weeks, and further re-listing seems unlikely to change that. There is disagreement (but virtually no follow-up discussion) about whether the many sources shown collectively satisfy WP:NCORP. If someone wishes to re-nominate (after waiting at least two months) it would behoove them to open with a review and analysis of all of the sources presented in this AfD and the previous one, perhaps using {{ORGCRIT assess}}. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

N/C in 2017, and I think it's time for another look as corp depth still does not appear to be there in WP:SIRS Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Michigan. Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are very normal corporate business sources, not ones that establish notability by Wikipedia standards. PickleG13 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Profile: Material Sciences Corporation". Noise & Vibration Worldwide. 38 (7). Sage Publishing: 21–22. July 2007. doi:10.1260/0957-4565.38.7.21. EBSCOhost 26045472.
  According to this page, Noise & Vibration Worldwide is a peer-reviewed journal. The article notes: "Material Sciences Corporation provides material-based solutions for acoustical and coating applications that address noise, temperature problems in the automotive, HVAC, electronics, power equipment, and construction industries. Founded in 1971 the company now has 600 employees in the US, Europe, and Asia and a network of partners on four continents. In fiscal 2006, MSC had net sales of $287 million and net income of $5.2 million. MSC has one of the largest independent sound engineering laboratories in North America, an application research centre located in Canton, MI."
2. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues. ... Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals. ... As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market."
3. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the money losing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as anti-vibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest."
4. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors. Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances. In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks. ... Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford."
5. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  From Cengage.com:
  When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.
  The book notes:
  Public Company
  Incorporated: 1971
  Employees: 740
  Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
  Stock Exchanges: New York
  Ticker Symbol: MSC
  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
  
  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
  
  Founding the Company in 1971
  
  MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
  The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
6. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
  Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
  Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
  Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
  Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
  Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
  Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
  Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
7. Hoover's had an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes: "Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US."
  Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail. Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite torn on this one, but are you volunteering to fix the article and add something beyond numbers and timelines of announcements? Your rebuttal to the proposal to delete this is at least one order of magnitude longer than the article. FalconK (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already found several of these on the last AFD and I am unconvinced of WP:CORPDEPTH. I suppose it depends if the Nelson Forbes pieces are significant. IgelRM (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of potentially useful sources linked to help but would love a bit more discussion before closing this out. Relisting in hopes of getting a bit more attention, will see if I can ping some noticeboards to take a look as well..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 18:11, 30 June 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)} 02:33, 8 July 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 redirect‎ to Inductance#Mutual inductance or any other target. The consensus is fairly clear that the article should Not Be Here any more: I am going to make an editorial decision to pick one of the proposed targets; if anyone prefers one of the other ones, like Faraday's law of induction, Electromagnetic induction, or just transformer (or sections thereof like § Transformer emf or Electromagnetic induction § Electrical transformer) or even something not mentioned here, please feel free to address it through standard editorial processes (e.g., BRD, etc) or list it at RfD. I am declaring the exact target of redirects Not AfD's Problem, since there are other venues for that and there's not much discussing of it going on here any more anyway. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer effect

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

Mutual inductance and Inductive coupling already have much more information here. The transformer effect certainly is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this, either. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - what are you suggesting should happen? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nom that the term is rarely used. It refers to the effect in which an emf is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. (see [38] and [39]). It is usually discussed in electrodynamics textbooks under the topic Faraday's law of induction. Given this, I propose that we merge to Faraday's law of induction, and create a redirect from the more common term, transformer emf, to that page. The coverage at the target article should also be expanded. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added discussion about transformer emf to Faraday's law of induction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer. There is nothing useful in this article to merge, it is high-school physics without sources. The name is not in common use, and I suspect is a literal translation from another language. It seems to have been created much earlier in WP history when the policy about what to include and verification was more open. I would also be OK with a simple delete, as a Google search mainly brings up pages on Transformer-syle robots. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer, as there is not any brilliant prose or even cited content worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, transformer seems like a wrong target. In those sources that care to define "transformer effect", e.g. this, it includes any effect from changing magnetic flux to a stationary circuit, similar to transformer emf. In particular, it includes the interaction between a circuit and a moving magnet, which is unrelated to what happens in a transformer. That's why I suggested Faraday's law of induction above. If we decide that it generally does not have a well-defined meaning, then we should delete it or link to Electromagnetic induction, which is the broadest article in the topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with either of those as redirect destinations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inductance#Mutual inductance, where Mutual induction also redirects. In 2006 the first sentence of the first version of this article read The Transformer Effect, or Mutual Induction, describes one of the processes by which an electromotive force (e.m.f.) is induced. So it was meant as an article on what we usually refer to as mutual induction. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Mutual inductance: The original intent of the author of the WP article does not matter, especially when the assertion that "transformer effect" is synonymous with mutual induction is unsourced. It is more important how the term is used in the literature. L.V. Kite (1974) An introduction to linear electric circuits discusses mutual inductance and says The phenomenon we have discussed here is the is the transformer effect. It occurs in circuits which are fixed in position, and should not be confused with the related phenomenon known as the dynamo effect, which depends for its existence on relative motion. This does not yet tell us whether he considers transformer effect synonymous with mutual inductance or whether it is more general phenomenon. However, he also says later that self induction [...] is obviously an additional manifestation of transformer effect. Here's another source that considers self-inductance in connection with the transformer effect: [40]. This indicates that Mutual inductance is a narrower concept than the transformer effect. Anyway, this is such a niche term that I am not strongly opposed to Mutual inductance as a target if it helps closing the AfD, since mutual inductance does lead the reader to the general topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:47, 6 July 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.

[1] ttps://www.centenarybank.co.mw/news/centenary-bank-paychangu-digital-payments-malawi

[2] ttps://malawi24.com/2025/06/13/nbm-plc-promises-customers-more-enjoyable-digital-banking-experience/

[3] ttps://www.nyasatimes.com/paychangu-named-ict-firm-of-the-year-at-ictam-corporate-awards-2025/

[1]

[2]

[3]