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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netronome

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reputable sources. Article hasn't been updated in years. Only mention of "Metronome" in scholarly literature is when talking about its products, nothing about the company itself. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing passing mentions, but nothing too substantive for the high standard of WP:NCORP. The best I found are: [1] [2] It would not surprise me if this does meet WP:GNG, I'm seeing a lot of hits on Google Scholar and Books, although as the nom says many of these are in the context of discussing specific products. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:19, 17 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.

Life Model Decoy

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet again, no reception/analysis - this is just plot summary and list of apperances. The old AfD from 2013 or so claimed "sources exist", but did not mention which ones contain SIGCOV that goes beyong plot summary, and my BEFORE failed to locate anything (I had trouble accessing some sources cited, but for example the mention in What is American? book seems to be to be pure plot summary and SIGCOV-failing; in either case, the article, as I said, has no analysis/reception of any sort). Per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to Features of the Marvel Universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reliable sources don't provide enough information to pass WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Other articles already cover how this factors into the story with proper real-world context, and I would consent to an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to S.H.I.E.L.D. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have the results of the Google Scholar search been considered? Already the first hit, Re-Entering the Dollhouse: Essays on the Joss Whedon Series, has a longish treatment of the life model decoy character A.I.D.A. Is this character treated elsewhere on Wikipedia or is it not rather within the scope of this one? Can anyone access "Iron Man's Heart? Daranios (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the Agents of Shield version of the character that is being discussed in that source is included on the character list for the show - List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters#Aida "Ophelia" / Madame_Hydra. The comic version the character was based on is also included on one of the Marvel character lists - List of Marvel Comics characters: A#AIDA. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants, Androids, and Aliens has commentary on Life Model Decoys, using individual characters as examples, and drawing conclusions about robots and androids more generally, but also pronouncing that disctincions matter and that the Life Model Decoy has a very specific niche as a sentient android (at least in this incarnation). So "no recpetion/analysis" falls short. (Drat, I did not actually want to know all those revelations on shows I may still watch.) What is American? has at least brief commentary on the life model decoy from a specific story as a "product of transformative experiments undertaken by a secret American government", etc. Unnützes Wissen für Marvel-Nerds suggests that Life Model Decoys function can be to retro-actively distance a character from behaviour in storylines. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon Versus the Corporation, p. 74, 125, also discusses how the LMD story element represents technological dangers; while drawing general conclusion (and comparisons with other media), this is again based on the character AIDA. In contrast, "Iron Man : entre confusion identitaire et addiction à la technologie" has similar conclusions but is based on an unrelated LMD. Daranios (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count at least six secondary sources in the article that make it notable. The article contains much information specific to its topic that would be too unwieldly if it were merged into the SHIELD article. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream Which of these sources go beyond plot summary and meet WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done a deep dive into the sources. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means your argument can be summarized as WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the content of sources notwithstanding, WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES would mean that no such sources have been named. That is not the case here, as the secondary sources in question are currently listed in the references of the article. So that essay does not apply to the situation here. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Daranios's sources have some fantastic coverage, but they feel more fitting for an AIDA article than a Life Model Decoy one, as they're largely all in relation to how it affects that particular character instead of being about the concept as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to an AIDA article at some point based on the extent of this coverage, but for the terms of this AfD and the coverage of specifically Life Model Decoys, I'd say it's likely not enough for notability. SHIELD seems to be the most valid AtD at present, so I'd recommend a redirect there to preserve the info in case of a future AIDA article or something similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: What is American? is about a very different LMD than AIDA. Mutants, Androids, and Aliens is talking more about what the concept LMD brings with it in general and LMD Melinda May than AIDA, although I think all in the same medium. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightscream's assertion about the sources making it notable. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some secondary sources appear in the article, some with plot summary, others with limited commentary. E.g. the Hollywood Reporter article goes through LMDs history and gives their characterization and narrative function. I have listed a number of more in-depth sources above. There is most analysis in relation with one specific character, AIDA, but the sources draw conclusions on LMDs more general. And there is also commentary on other LMDs. So yes, some of that could be fit into AIDA, but I think it is more benefical to have everything in one place, giving this context from various LMD characters. WP:NOTPAPER means that some duplication between here and AIDA would not be a problem. All that said, I think a split and merge to AIDA and S.H.I.E.L.D. (although that yet lacks a technology section), or maybe to Features of the Marvel Universe#Objects (advantage: some LMDs are only very indirectly related to S.H.I.E.L.D.) is possible. I just think there being enough material for a full article and the alternative meaning splitting the material would be an inferior solution. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Nightscream:, @BOZ:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do fan articles like this get a pass if they're for Marvel? As the nominator says, there's no secondary coverage here. It's all just in-universe stuff. Fine for a fan wiki, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Coverage should be a redirect to a section in whichever is the best of our infinite universe of Marvel articles, no more. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:6C4C:4E3:8ECB:EFDB (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT, regardless of whether sources exist, it needs a full rewrite anyway as the page is currently unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Coverage looks to be either trivial or unreliable or both, but this is a reasonable search term that is clearly mentioned in good secondary sources even if not really covered in depth. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Daranios. These provide enough WP:SIGCOV for the article to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This AFD looks like it might be trending to no consensus. With my merge/redirect, I see the nominator's delete/redirect, three more deletes, two more redirects, one merge turned keep, and four keeps. But I see some more WP:ATD support if you read in the comments. It could be maybe 7/12 combining the soft redirect/merge support, which would be more than the keeps or deletes by themselves. When you clean up the primary sourced "known examples" this would be a stub with a very easy and clean merge. Archrogue (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D., where the concept is explained in the "Fictional organizational history" section. If a specific character has coverage and analysis, that might demonstrate that specific character is notable, but that does not extend to the entire, uh, "species" (for lack of better term) they belong to. The trivia list of examples that most of the article is made up of is clearly not appropriate for merging, and the actual explanation of LMDs is already covered in the main SHIELD article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:20, 1 August 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Doom#Inventions without prejudice against merging. Owen× ☎ 12:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doombot

AfDs for this article:

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

This is just the usual plot summary and list of appearances - no evidence of how this meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD-R and what I judge to be weak consensus on the talk page, I suggest redirecting this to Doctor_Doom#Inventions (I don't see what is useful here for merging, but no prejudice to it if someone thinks something here is worth preserving). PS. Keep arguments from the prior AfD seem to cite illustrated, not-independent and plot-summary-only comic book "encyclopedias", little better (or IMHO strictly worse, outside being pretty paper weights) from fan pages like fandom/wikia. PS. My BEFORE failed to locate anything substantial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This article needs reliable independent information to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOT. This object is already summarized at Doctor Doom, where it can be covered in-context and proportional to its reception (or lack thereof). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom per nom. Clear GNG failure, but there's also a very clear target where this is discussed in adequate detail. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom#Inventions - I am not seeing anything either in the article or upon searches that demonstrates that the concept of Doombots has had significant coverage separate from general coverage of their creator, so per WP:NOPAGE should be covered on the main Dr. Doom article. And since it already is covered there, a redirect to that section would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the Inventions section of Doctor Doom. Though the Doombot that was in Avengers A.I. was a main character and has since been classified as Doombot C53. If we have to merge that Doombot to List of Marvel Comics characters: D, we can. As for the last time this was up for discussion, there were some keeps from @Andrew Davidson:, @BOZ:, and @ThePlatypusofDoom: who had their reasons there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Doctor Doom#Inventions. There is a consensus that it's already covered at the main article and any added detail can be sorted out after the AFD. Archrogue (talk) 15:13, 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 redirect‎ to FIRST Tech Challenge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Pipe Hustle

AfDs for this article:

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

Another article about a robotic competition that has no independent sources and so fails event notability. There are only two references, and one of them is a dead link.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Wayback entry, archived from http://usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/ftc/content.aspx?id=17208	Documentation of First Tech Challenge (FTC), and so is by the competition organization	No	Yes	Probably	No
2	Dead link, tagged as dead link by bot in 2010	Appears to have been non-independent	No	?	No	No
3

This is one of several annual articles about the events of a competition called FIRST Tech Challenge. A bundled AFD listing 9 of these competitions was submitted in 2016 and closed as No Consensus, because some of the annual events had sources. It wasn't a train wreck because the train engineers avoided the track.

Redirect to FIRST Tech Challenge as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Georgia (U.S. state). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 17 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) 04:16, 24 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helios (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Source 1 barely mentions the company. Sources 2, 3 and 5 are very similar; 3 and 5 appear to be unbylined press releases and 2 is churnalism of the same press release. Source 4 is non-independent as practically all information comes from the mouth of cofounder Alexander Aronson. Sources 6 and 7 don't load (probably a result of using ChatGPT). I can't find any non-routine coverage of the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Environment, Technology, Philippines, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 17 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) 01:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are either press releases or dependent on the company's own statements, and there's little independent coverage to support inclusion. Additionally, the written style raises concerns per WP:LLM, as it resembles suspicious content. AdobongPogi (talk) 03:46, 24 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 FIRST Tech Challenge. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST Res-Q

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

Non-notable robotic competition that does not satisfy event notability because it has no independent sources. The only references are three documents that form the rulebook for the competition.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Wayback archive of www.firstinspires.org	Part 1 of Game Manual	No	Yes	Probably	No
2	Wayback archive of www.firstinspires.org	Part 2 of Game Manual	No	Yes	Probably	No
3	Wayback archive of www.firstinspires.org	Also from First Tech Challenge, may be Part 3 of Game Manual	No	Yes	Probably	No

This article was created by an editor who made 70 edits in 2016 and has not edited since. This article has had very little attention since 2017.

This appears to have been a seasonal event of FIRST Tech Challenge, which does have independent sourcing, so that redirection may be an alternative to deletion. This and other seasonal events were nominated for deletion in a bundle in 2016 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Pipe Hustle, which was No Consensus because the quality of coverage of different annual events varied.

It may be useful to look at the other annual events that were nominated in the bundle and renominate others that have no independent sources, but this AFD is for this article.

Redirect as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Missouri. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 16 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) 22:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not even sure if original competition is notable; this specific iteration is not. The sources are all self-published, no independent coverage. GoldRomean (talk) 22:09, 24 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReadPartner

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BEFORE: No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Available references are limited to promotional materials, company‐issued press releases, user reviews on marketing blogs—not sufficient under WP:RS. CivicInk (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Social science, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Austria, and United States of America. CivicInk (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 16 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) 20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I performed my own searches using Google and did not find anything except this, which looks like AI-generated undisclosed paid news crap, and other sources like that (blogs, product listings, articles filled with SEO-optimized affiliate links). There's simply no usable coverage other than the GeekFlare source, which I can't determine if it's usable or not, but even if it is, one source is not enough. OutsideNormality (talk) 21:13, 23 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.

Virtual manufacturing network

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

This concept doesn't seem to meet notability criteria, and has no sources 7804j (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I withdraw my nomination. The discussion below has convinced me that the topic is notable enough, but just requires more sources. Commenters have provided a few such sources, which I will incorporate in the article. I will also slightly rewrite the article to at least a proper "stub" state, so that it doesn't require deletion.7804j (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Technology, and Computing. 7804j (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like a AI generated article.--FreaksIn 18:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)— FreaksIn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Unclethepoter (talk · contribs). [reply]
I have updated the article based on the discussions below. Does your "delete" view still hold considering the new version? 7804j (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a decade-old article, BTW, so not AI.

It's a real term, but it's not a real article. It says nothing more than a WP:DICDEF and the only source isn't much better. There's potentially scope for writing a useful article here, but this isn't one. No objection to anyone who wants to do that, but otherwise I think we're better without. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Keep, following changes by 7804j making the article more useful and causing it to actually show notability; with the caveat that I would rather it go to a draft named “Virtual manufacturing” where it could be a sub-topic (because as seen 1, 2, 3, and 4 virtual manufacturing should have notability and this probably does have a place as a sub-topic. If this isn’t possible for technical reasons Im also happy to just copy across content. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article based on the discussions below. Does your "draftify" view still hold considering the new version? 7804j (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, I'm seeing plenty of substantive hits in Google Scholar. Editorially, I agree with Emily.Owl that we should probably move this page to Virtual manufacturing and add this as a subsection, or we should create Virtual manufacturing and merge this page to it. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we don't have a page on virtual manufacturing I'd support a merge to dynamic manufacturing network instead. Also a virtual manufacturing network is a distinct subset of virtual manufacturing: it's an established network that supports virtual manufacturing, rather than the need to set up ad hoc relationships for the virtual manufacture of each process, as required. Virtual manufacturing is nearly as old as Adam Smith's pin factory; but the idea of a network for it relies on modern techniques in IT: data representation, open standards, metadata, formal quality assurance, licensing of concepts and microcharging. It needs to be a low friction network if it's to work. Watchmakers in the East End of London centuries ago had virtual manufacturing, but not dynamic manufacturing or a network for it. Particular families specialised in particular tasks, such as gear cutting or spring making, but each family was engaged (trapped?) into long-term specialised relations to carry on that one process, usually for one client, long-term.

A virtual manufacturing network today allows flexibility between both client and contractor. The work is fungible, it can be allocated and re-allocated dynamically as needed or convenient. The client doesn't care which contractor carries it out and this can change between quite small batches. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub for Virtual manufacturing since everyone agrees this is a topic that's notable.

If we agree that "Virtual Manufacturing network" is a thing, I would prefer keeping the article as a dedicated page rather than merging it into some other article. But I'm struggling to find enough relevant sources for it. It seems to me like, even if merged, we would need more than the current one source. If this group finds sources for VMN, I can volunteer to incorporate them into the existing page and restructure the stub as needed (so that we can avoid a deletion) 7804j (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and contribute to articles when I have the time. In the mean time here are sources that should related directly to VMNs: in aerospace, more generally. Thanks for volunteering to incorporate sources, Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 05:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might be a candidate where the article could be improved. Draftify is also an OK outcome for now. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to Keep based on recent efforts and as the nominator has withdrawn. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ virtual manufacturing on the basis of missing the point so badly as to be indistinguishable from LLM output (more like Gooogle AI or ChatGPT rather than even Grok). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is for the Virtual Manufacturing Network page, not virtual manufacturing.

On Virtual Manufacturing: it seems to me that your definition (from your above comment) doesn't match the definition I could find on internet. E.g., you say "Watchmakers in the East End of London centuries ago had virtual manufacturing". How would virtual manufacturing work before the invention of computers? Could you share a source that matches this definition? 7804j (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you build an article purely by 30 seconds Googling and a handful of post-~~2020~~2015 sources about 'Industry 4.0', don't be surprised if it omits any mentions from Industry 1.0, Industry 2.0 or Industry 3.0. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to sources such as this one, which defines Virtual Manufacturing as "a computer-based technology for defining, simulating, and visualizing the manufacturing process early in the design stage, allowing for the detection and resolution of manufacturing-related issues as well as estimation of manufacturing costs and time." They aren't post-2020 sources.

Regardless, this seems outside the scope of this deletion discussion since this is for a different page 7804j (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination has been withdrawn, but there are valid Delete and Draftify views here, so this can't be speedy-kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the delete and draftify views were based on the old version of the article, before I expanded it, and were primarily due to quality rather than notability. So I'm not sure they are still relevant 7804j (talk) 17:20, 24 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) 01:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on changes made by user:7804j to establish notability.Sam0fc (talk) 06:48, 31 July 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. ✗plicit 08:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treyd

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace regardless, fails WP:NCORP and is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Ireland, and Sweden. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. How is it blatant advertising when I have only included information presented in the different sources? Additionally, all the information provided is cited and written in a neutral language? Cece GFI (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"provides working capital solutions to product-based businesses" followed by a list of routine funding rounds. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the description of the company's services, which can be verified. So the issue is how it is worded or what exactly?

How are funding rounds advertisement, yet it is describing the company's history? Once again, the information on the company's funding is published by multiple sources.

Multiple Wikipedia pages on companies, mention funding rounds. How does that make it advertising? Cece GFI (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about the company, not just funding rounds. Things that show what the company does, why it's gotten critical notice, new products or services. Not just "company gets money, does stuff". Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; The following is my source analysis (from the article, my WP:BEFORE did not turn up any new/significant sources). Using this revision for source labels.
Sources 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 do not provide any coverage that is both significant and independent except potentially mention of fundraising success. They do not convey notability.
Sources 5 and 6 don’t actually provide significant coverage for Treyd in any form. They do not convey notability.
Sources 2, 4, 9, and 12 all could provide notability but I am not entirely sure (other editors opinions would be greatly valued in regard to these sources). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2, ok fine... Rest aren't anything beyond funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is fine, the rest are about funding. I can only see articles about funding or new executives, nothing about what the company does or why it operates in the market... Source 2 is fine, but it's not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage that isn't just mention of funding rounds. What is the company actually notable for? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 16 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. While the author has made a heroic effort to improve the page, I see clear consensus that this did not result in an article that meets our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 22:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Machine learning in Brazilian industry

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

This essay-like article, the result of a student assignment, really needs either WP:TNT or draftification since it is a mess of WP:SYNTH. Most of the sources are either: (a) not about machine learning/AI, (b) not about Brazilian industry, (c) WP:Primary government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos". Draftification was contested. Possibly AI-generated as well. One of the few relevant secondary sources, On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, is non-independent since the authors are part of organizations that partner with the observatory.

If this is draftified, we should require the authors to submit through WP:AFC since they already contested draftification without solving the underlying problems. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Brazil. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TNT required. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi. Yesterday I had mande several improvements. As I mentioned, this is our first time working on Wikipedia as authors, and we're adapting to the needs outlined in the review.

Please let us know if this is OK now or if we still need to adjust it. If necessary, we'll change the article's approach. That would be fine with us. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if helps but I can improve the approach of the article replacing the first part for an AI approach only instead Machine Learning. Maybe, it would be more accordingly with the rest of the article and it would be a very relevance topic considering that we really don't have any discuss regarding AI application in Brazilian industry. What do you think? Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the highlighted points:

items a) and b) I kindly ask you to highlighted the references are not regarding ML/AI or brazilian industry sector because we took the information direct from the sources of the references and almost all of them are about AI aplication and/or brazilian industry or its sectors.

c) Regarding government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos" and others as bills, they are all public and to improve the access to the readers I just have inserted the PDF link access to the document. Those documents talk about what brazilan government and congress plan to do to improve AI aplication in Brazil and therefore we consider extremily important to the article.

Regarding On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, we have removed it and replaced for the public access article that raises the same issue about the concernings about privacy policies of AI.

I am totally avaliable to make this work. Please anallyse the response and if necessary any more improvements I am on to do it.

thanks dears for the contributions. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, your sources are either about AI or Brazilian industry, but not both. Combining sources that are just one or the other is WP:SYNTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-write the whole article from scracht, including content, references and adjusting the title according the article. All the references are from secondary and reliable sources directly addressing the topics of AI and Brazilian industry in depth. Please take a look again and see if it is OK now. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects.

• I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - For context, it looks like this article was created during a workshop this month: Wikipedia:GLAM/PoliMi/2025. The author self-IDs as a PhD student who is willing to work on the article, and I see salvageable material here, so I think going through AfC is completely reasonable here. I also think a WP:HEY improvement could avoid WP:TNT here. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that it looks like this draft was reviewed by three new editors, also participants in the workshop: User:Qiongjx, User:Rezreven, and User:Terzinator98. It doesn't look to me like it was reviewed by any of the workshop organizers. Suriname0 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI to other editors: I went through each of the other articles created by this workshop. I believe all the rest meet WP:GNG, although most of them need copyediting. I've tagged them accordingly. Suriname0 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if helps but I can improve the approach of the article replacing the first part for an AI approach only instead Machine Learning. Maybe, it would be more accordingly with the rest of the article and it would be a very relevance topic considering that we really don't have any discuss regarding AI application in Brazilian industry. What do you think? Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think that's the most relevant improvement to be made here. In general, I would follow the advice at WP:THREE: identify three secondary, reliable sources directly addressing machine learning in Brazilian industry in depth. That will help other participants in this discuss determine if the article should be kept and improved. The main concern raised by the nominator is improper WP:SYNTH, meaning that much of the content of the article is not informed by independent, reliable, secondary sources but instead by original research of primary materials to reach conclusions not suggested by the original material. If we have sources showing that the topic is notable, then we can remove sections not supported by those sources (per WP:DUE). I know Wikipedia policy is confusing, so please ask if you have more questions. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add: one good way to learn more about Wikipedia processes is to borrow the formatting and style of others. In this case, you might consider looking at the way User:Cunard formats their AfD votes and format your own vote similarly. Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Power Within (1979 film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material Sciences Corporation (2nd nomination), etc. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-write the whole article from scracht, including content, references and adjusting the title according the article. All the references are from secondary and reliable sources directly addressing the topics of AI and Brazilian industry in depth. Please take a look again and see if it is OK now. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look, but I'll repeat the advice at WP:THREE: as you can see from the other votes, the crux of the issue here is sourcing. It will really help reviewers here determine if the subject meets WP:GNG by leaving a comment identifying the three best sources that establish the notability of this topic. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I will do that and revise the article right away. I let you know. Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did yesterday (July 21) to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects.

• I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again.

R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Metallurgist (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have made several improvements (references, content and others improvments according to Wikipedia policies) yesterday in the article. Please check them out and let me know.

We'll be happy to make any adjustments. As I mentioned, this is our first time working on Wikipedia as authors, and we're adapting to the needs outlined in the review.

Please let us know if this is OK now or if we still need to adjust it. If necessary, we'll change the article's approach. That would be fine with us. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if helps but I can improve the approach of the article replacing the first part for an AI approach only instead Machine Learning. Maybe, it would be more accordingly with the rest of the article and it would be a very relevance topic considering that we really don't have any discuss regarding AI application in Brazilian industry. What do you think? Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RS Tgn You need sources that specifically describe how ML/AI is being applied in Brazilian industry, it is not enough to combine sources only about ML/AI with sources only about Brazilian industry. Governmental proposals are WP:PRIMARY sources and are therefore of limited value; at least some secondary sources are required. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-write the whole article from scratch, including content, references and adjusting the title according the article. All the references are from secondary and reliable sources directly addressing the topics of AI and Brazilian industry in depth. Please take a look again and see if it is OK now. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I have made the following improvements:

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and get back to me, please. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the article has been completely rewritten and renamed to Artificial intelligence and industry 4.0 in Brazil, and the sources appear on the surface to be relevant, but the article is still essay-like and reads like it's AI-generated. In fact the rewrite was initially done without any references at all, which suggests the sources might not verify the text very well. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have written by my hands. There is no copy-past text, no plagio. In fact, I have written if without any references first and save several times but then I have added carefully add the citations and refrences for each paragraph. Please take a carefull look and let me know if is still anything wrong on that. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I write it again I can do it. Please let me know what to do to publish. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain how this was done:

1) First, I selected a few reliable references on the topic I wanted to address, respecting Wikipedia's policies.

2) After that, I developed the text's structure.

3) For each section of the article, I wrote the text with my hands without references (which I had already read and studied).

4) After finishing the text, I returned to inserting the references by paragraph. Naturally, the paragraph is not the same as the reference, as that is not correct. The reference supports the reasoning and conclusions of the paragraph.

5) Once this was done, I again inserted links to the Wikipedia pages for the relevant terms.

After your comment here I have completely reviewed and improved the text. Please take a look again and check if it is accordingly. I think it is much better. Thank you.R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)(Hi!)]][reply]
Yeah, sourcing seems to be okay. This might be good enough to keep instead of draftifying. My main concern is the essay-like tone and structure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure my friend. It was my concern and that is why I have reviewed and changed the text. Please let me know if you still have any other consideration in the structure, If so, let me know. I am glad to review also that if is necessary. Wait for your response. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did today (July 21) to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

Regarding "Essay style":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

For the Notability of the Intersection between Subjects:

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again

R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Yesterday I have re-writen from scratch the article, changed the title, improved and renewed the entire content manually, also structure and sessions, and I have improved the references.

Please let me know if there any other improvement to do regarding this topic. I consider that for English readers we do not have any other topic related to this one, except the separated concepts themselves and therefore I sincerelly consider that is very important topic for those milions of brazilians and interested, specially for industry sector.

Wait for your reply. Tks in advance. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT. More like an essay than a Wikipedia article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I will revise the article and let you know. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I did to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

Regarding "Essay style":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

For the Notability of the Intersection between Subjects:

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend posting your message once (for example as a comment at the bottom) instead of sharing the same message to everyone.

Some unsolicited advice: Use caution when using LLMs to draft and share messages, even on talk pages (WP:LLM). They have a tendency to act as an echo chamber for your own point of view and may simply not alert you if there are real issues with sourcing for this topic. IMO, this would be a great article for a Medium or blog post, not so great for an encyclopedia. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Tks. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topics don't acquire notability through being the intersection of two (or more) notable topics; the intersection itself has to be covered by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Where are the sources covering this topic? This would need sources treating all components in conjunction (AI, Industry 4.0, Brazil), not just sources about those individual components. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I will revise the article and let you know. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I did to address the concerns raised about the article "Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 in Brazil":

Regarding "Essay style":

• I removed subjective and analytical language, making the text objective and factual.

• I restructured the entire article, making it more concise and with clear sections, focusing only on verifiable information.

• I inserted references as I wrote each sentence and paragraph, not after the text was finished, ensuring a direct link between the text and the reference.

• I ensured that all statements were directly attributed to the sources to demonstrate verifiability.

For the Notability of the Intersection between Subjects:

• I prioritized and cited sources that simultaneously address the topics of Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and the Brazilian context.

• In the introduction and body of the article, I highlighted how these sources demonstrate the relevance and demonstrated the intersection of the subjects. • I explicitly linked each relevant statement to the corresponding bibliographic reference, demonstrating the basis in sources that address the intersection.

In short, I rewrote the article from scratch, with my own hands. Naturally, I used the references I already had, giving more emphasis to those that intersect the topics mentioned.

Please analyze this as if it were a new article and let me know if it is OK to publish. Tks again. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out the source(s) that treat the intersection of the topics mentioned? I had a brief look but couldn't see that any of them qualify. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Star Mississippi:. Svartner (talk) 19:01, 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 14:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Critic Review Aggregator

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

Promotion for non notable publication. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Noting WP:NEWSORGINDIA, refbombed to PR rehashes, dead, and primary sources. Even most of the PR rehashes are for other things and do not even verify content here. Part of a promotion platform with the likes of Tagore International Film Festival, World Film Carnival Singapore, Luis Bunuel Memorial Awards, Cult Critic Movie Awards, Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. Buy an award, earn a review on Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Visual arts, Entertainment, Games, Technology, Computing, Internet, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: using this revision for source numners.
Sources [1], [2], [7], and [13] make brief insignificant mention of subject (simply mention that Cult Critic gave movie awards at a film festival). Similarly source [9] makes brief mention as part of a listicle article and so doesn’t give notability.
Sources [3], [6], [10], [11], and [12] are simply reviews or lists of reviews/rewards. This means they are not independent and do not give notability.
Sources [4], [5], [8], and [13] all were inaccessible to me and so I can’t comment on them.
My own attempt at WP:BEFORE using google news and a standard google search did not reveal sources that could convey notability. However, it did reveal that Cult Critic has ran a couple of film festivals/awards cerimonies. If someone can convince me that this conveys notability I may be inclined to change my opinion (and thus !vote). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 20:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the film festival/award, it's somewhat a case of "who is reporting and in what context". It's not ideal, but an argument could be made for notability if the award results were reprinted by multiple notable outlets. This specifically refers to reprints like this, where a major outlet reprints the list. The gist behind this is that major outlets like say, Variety or Locus are going to be selective in what award results they reprint, so they're not going to reprint some random film festival or award. For example, Dead Meat is a notable YouTube channel and has a pretty well received awards ceremony, but few outlets reprint the results because even with the channel's substantial following they just can't justify it. (Even Bloody Disgusting only reported on the awards once.) Of note, what wouldn't count towards this would be local papers writing about how their local person won an award. The focus there isn't really the award and local coverage of that nature is typically seen as a weak source at best.

With that in mind, I took a look for the award/festival in specific and didn't find anything that would establish that the award is notable. No opinion on the aggregator as of yet, but the site's award/festival cannot help in establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search didn't really take long, as there is really nothing out there. What coverage exists is pretty light and not enough on its own to establish notability. I'm aware that the site is based out of India and that Google doesn't always properly search Indian sources, but there's not really anything to help argue that more/better sourcing exists. If anyone can find anything, I'm open to changing my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Emily.Owl (talk · contribs)'s excellent analysis of the sources above! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:42, 20 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.

Orbit Fab

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

Non notable startup, the sources are only announcements and press releases. No SIGCOV in reliable and secondary sources. Fails Wp:NORG Zuck28 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Spaceflight, United States of America, and Colorado. Zuck28 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided on this at the moment, but here is a BBC article that clearly provides coverage of use to demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 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!} 06:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep some of the sources like BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3wzlvnn2o are really good. The page has the potential to be saved and enriched with new references. --Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The BBC article consists mainly of company representatives talking about their own company, there is not enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP. The other sources are mostly routine coverage about fundraising, project announcements, partnership announcements, etc. that also do not contain enough non-routine independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree that the BBC article fails ORGIND and I am unable to locate any articles that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KineMaster

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

please read this discussion in rfd, as i'll be assuming you've done so when i suggest deleting to start from scratch, because i'm not even entirely sure the content that was made from the scraps of a revision blanked as spam can be called a stub, as it barely meets the bare minimum for gng, and barely does the bare minimum with that bare minimum coverage, which is really weird when more sources have already been found (though their reliability is up for debate, so check the rfd thread again, because they're piled up there)

the options, as i see them, culminate in deletion being the best choice to encourage recreation (or rather, creation), as keeping and redirecting could cause editors more excited about this than literally falling asleep while checking sources to think the current situation is fine, unless someone is in the mood to actually add more to it consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and South Korea. consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey wait a minute, the current revision at the time of nomination doesn't even meet the bare minimum for gng, as it only has sources from two different places!! this means that, unless worked on within the time this discussion is up, i don't think keeping would be an option at all consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:45, 12 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!} 23:23, 19 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!} 22:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has next to no content and no viable third-party coverage found. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:59, 2 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salah's Model for Diesel Engine Intake Airflow

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

No independent source. Dependent on the authors own research paper. Rht bd (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only source relating to the actual article content is the research paper that it is nominally about, and thus certainly is neither independent nor a secondary source. Of the others: one is a documentation of all the authors publications (not the only citations of his publications are from others of his publications at least according to google scholar), the other is simply a documentation of the different components of an engine. As such the article decidely fails WP:GNG. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 16:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent sources Laura240406 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The (only) paper cited here on the topic has one citation. This means that the general scientific community has not considered this model to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adeendum After reading the page Nano-I-beam which was created by the same editor I have a strong suspicion that this is the authors own research work. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and many of the authors edits have been adding their papers to articles. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:38, 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. ✗plicit 12:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InfoVision

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

Promotional piece of content of a non notable company. Fails for WP:NCORP. LKBT (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Texas. LKBT (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From the article I found 3 sources meriting investigation 1, 2, and 3.
Source 1 appears to very closely match/directly copy a press release and an interview (where the link is blocked by an edit filter) which leads me to discard it as not independent. Source 2 is also similar (although slightly less), but as per WP:SIRS I will ignore it for determining notability because its independence is doubtful.
Source 3 does seem to meet WP:SIRS but on its own can’t convey notability.
Finally through google news I found what appeared to be an independent article but when looking more closely large chunks seem to be poorly attributed quotations and claims from someone involved with InfoVision.
Because of this I do not believe there are enough sources that meet WP:SIRS to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 16:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above examination of sources. The article is borderline promotional. GenuineArt (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. My own WP:BEFORE brought only press releases and promotional pieces. Patre23 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, above examination of sources pretty much summates the argument for failing WP:NCORP and being entirely promotional. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:33, 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 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. [3] 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 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 [4], Business Standard [5], BusinessMatter [6] 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 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 [7] ; [8], [9], [10]. --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 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 ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17]) 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 ([18][19]) are very promotional by nature. And the one from ITweb Tumbuka Arch brought up appear to be a press release ([20]). 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 ([21]), which I can access now, it appears to cover the same publicity event as one of the Malawi24 articles ([22]). 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 ([23], 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 [24]and those partnerships with banks like Centenary bank [25] 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 [26] 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. [27] An in-depth review on the topic by Harvard Business Review, Why “Living Intelligence” Is the Next Big Thing. [28], Other good and independent article on the topic by AOL, Exploring "Living Intelligence," a Merging of AI, Sensors, and Biotech. [29] 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.

[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]