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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CyberCraft Bangladesh

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

I can't find any evidence of this new company passing WP:NCORP, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. To give credit to the article creator, they have done a full WP:COI disclosure in their initial edit summary. All I can find in my own searches are the company's own social media. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of any notability fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG — KylieTastic (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant notability – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 23:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good hits for GNews and GBooks --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have any reliable sources. COI articles should be done via AFC.Darkm777 (talk) 01:30, 29 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!} 00:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Central

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

Non-notable telecom company; only source may be promotional. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Dakota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LightlySeared (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created by a serial sockpuppet who contributed the most to the page even well after they were blocked (and who has made this organization miserable with vile and racist vandalism and harassment here and elsewhere from their IPs being reported to them); otherwise just a small-town communications cooperative which can't really gain much more WP:N just because of how they're organized. Nathannah • 📮 22:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did manage to find this article [1] which compares Daktel broadband speeds with its competitors, however this is hardly in-depth coverage. Everything else I have found are local news articles with little scope or circulation outside of North Dakota. I can't see there being enough sources that would meet the GNG here.Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 29 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.

Canopy Biosciences

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

No establishment of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Merge and Redirect to Bruker. The Canopy article has only one non-press release or company site source (#10). The acquisition announcement in the Bruker article is even a press release. I looked for more independent coverage and could only find this. This one has no author and uses the press release announcement quote. If anyone has more time to look and can find other reliable sources to move the needle, please add them. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Changing my vote to weak keep, based on the below media sources. As I understand it, scholarly papers require high citation counts to be themselves notable, unless there's media coverage of them. I looked up the first one and the count is 29, ok but not great. The others might be higher if you want to look. You can post a connected edit request to have the media sources added to replace the poor current sourcing. See Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests for more info. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, Technology, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or strong redirect to Bruker company. I feel like there are sources not yet mentinoed here. but the redirect option is also good. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a conflict of interest, so I will not edit the article directly. However, I would like to point out several independent, reliable secondary sources that may have been overlooked and could help establish notability per WP:GNG:

Independent coverage:

St. Louis Business Journal – Profile on company growth and business strategy (2020)
Inside Precision Medicine – Coverage of Zellkraftwerk acquisition and expansion into multi-omics (2019)
Entrepreneur Quarterly – Background on acquisition and BioGenerator support (2020)
Yahoo Finance – Summary of Bruker acquisition and strategic fit

Published research using the company's ChipCytometry technology:

Jarosch et al., 2021. "Multiplexed imaging and automated signal quantification in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues by ChipCytometry.". – Demonstrates multiplexed protein detection and signal quantification in human FFPE tissues.
Jarosch et al., 2022. "ChipCytometry for multiplexed detection of protein and mRNA markers on human FFPE tissue samples.". – Describes a combined mRNA and protein detection workflow using ChipCytometry.
Carstensen et al., 2021. "Quantitative analysis of endotoxin-induced inflammation in human subjects using ChipCytometry.". – Applies ChipCytometry to clinical samples to measure inflammation-related immune responses.
Schupp et al. 2021. "In-Depth Immune-Oncology Studies of the Tumor Microenvironment in a Humanized Melanoma Mouse Model." – Uses ChipCytometry to profile immune cells in humanized tumor models.
Jarosch et al. 2023. "Multimodal immune cell phenotyping in GI biopsies reveals microbiome-related T cell modulations in human GvHD." – Combines ChipCytometry with scRNA-seq to phenotype human GI biopsies from clinical cohorts.

I hope these independent sources and scientific literature aid editors reviewing the deletion discussion; they demonstrate sustained notability and adoption beyond company‑generated materials. If article is kept, I would request another editor incorporate these updated references. MolBioByte (talk) 18:34, 28 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) 01:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The independent sources provided above (especially the 4th) by the editor with a WP:COI seem adequately non-trivial. AFAIK, the Yahoo piece has information not available in other articles with independence issues. WP:SUSTAINED (as the policy notes) does not mean that a short burst of reliable secondary sources cannot establish permanent notability. Sam0fc (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruker as per WP:ATD. The topic of this article is the company, not their products, therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. We have a number of sources above and one flaw in the reasoning above is that the editor is focussed on whether the source is an "indepdendent, realiable secondary source" but does not appear to have considered the *content* of the articles, and whether it meets the criteria for "independent content". Similarly, the "published research" needs to provide in-depth independent content about the *company* but instead appears to showcase the novel step involved in their technology. Notability is not inherited - if the company is notable then we expect to find sources that meet the criteria for notability - that is, articles that discuss the company. I've provided an analysis below:

Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent Content?	In-depth?	Overall establishes notability per NCORP
"Why fast-growing Canopy Biosciences isn't your typical biotech startup — by design". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.	It relies entirely on information provided in an interview with a Sr. VP and their CEO. There is no "independent content" whatsoever and reads like an advertorial.
"Canopy Biosciences Expands into 'Multi-Omics' Company with Zellkraftwerk Acquisition". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.	This (and lots of other sources) simple regurgitates this PR announcement of the same day.
"Canopy Biosciences Acquired by Bruker After 4 Years As BioGenerator Incubated Startup". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.	Like the earlier source, this one (as well as lots of others) regurgitates earlier announcements from connected parties about the acquisition, such as this and this. No independent content.
"Bruker's Buyout of Canopy Biosciences Enhances Portfolio". St. Louise Business Journal. 2022-08-03. Retrieved 2025-08-03.	From Zack's Equity Research but fails ORGIND for the same reasons as others which primarily repeat announcements. If this was a research report from Zack's, an analyst might have provided some context for the acquisition but here, statements such as the acquisition will "enable Bruker to enhance its own portfolio" and the global presence "will be beneficial for both the companies" only repeats the PR and is not Zack's independent content.

As mentioned earlier, none of the "published research" provides in-depth independent content about the company. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Local

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

Covered mostly in WP:TRADES. This article is probably the best about them but it lacks in-depth analysis and is full of quotes like "Whelan said", "he said" or regurgitated press release information. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supported by multiple high-quality, independent sources. The company is notable both in terms of media coverage and industry impact, and the current article includes properly cited, verifiable information. It should not be deleted.

We removed sections that looked like advertising and performed extensive rewrites. Happy to make further improvements if needed. Thanks Dylan909 (talk) 22:48, 30 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!} 02:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Role of social media in the modern reparations movement

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

Another article created by a faulty editathon. This article is inevitably full of WP:SYNTH and is likely written using an AI tool, added line by line to inflate their edit counts (if you have the greatest number of edits, you stand to win a cash prize.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, Technology, and Africa. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT, WP:SYNTH, WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone know how I can communicate with the organizers of this editathon? Basically every single article created because of this has been nominated for deletion or draftified, and many of the participants have been blocked for meatpuppetry and disruptive editing ([2], [3], etc.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the page for the event. Event:Africa Wiki Challenge 2025/Home - Meta Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely seems like editors having good intentions, but not being very aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and notability guidelines. Most of the topics in their "focus topics" list and the latter half of their article list don't seem notable enough for their own articles, and the wording "advocating for reparations for Africa and its Diaspora" makes it sound like they're trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. ApexParagon (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific person I can contact? The person who created the editathon pages haven't been active in months (and has been blocked in Commons.) I'm willing to take this to ANI or some other venue since this has only led to disruption. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd open a ticket at the Village Pump [4] and ask... This might have been at attempt to create an Editathon, to sneak in low-quality articles. I have no idea of course. The person being blocked leaves me thinking this isn't on the up and up. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or if an Admin here has a better idea where to ask, feel free to suggest otherwise. I'm a somewhat seasoned Wiki veteran, but not as smart as some of the real gurus here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to one of the organizers asking them to communicate in the Village Pump. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LLM-generated and not notable, lots of SYNTH. At least one cited source is hallucinated. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 08:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article page is now blank, I suspect it's being speedied. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some random account that didn't create the article blanked it for some reason 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (Edit: Turns out the blanker is a sock of the article creator) (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to add more links to the article, but around halfway through I noticed that:

- the article was repeating itself over-and-over again

- the article read much more like an essay than a Wikipedia article

- multiple sources were fictitious/non-existent

- it was chock-full of original research and WP:SYNTH

- and it was most likely partially or fully-AI generated.

The topic itself doesn't seem very notable either, since reparations for slavery already has an article. I don't think this is salvageable. ApexParagon (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really, anything that creates incentives for editing other than for knowledge is going to cause this sort of nonsense. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 19:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just all kinds of wrongs here, the LLM use, the synth, largely repeating other articles... This badly needs reworking, but I don't see anything useful to be saved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SYNTH and LLM use, any such content in future would be better suited to a section on an existing page first before being grown to potentially an entirely separate page. lizthegrey (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as LLM generated in a long list of LLM generated articles that are being created in ever greater numbers. Especially for material with bad sourcing. The LLM method does not generally find great sources for these random article creations. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:21, 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 Gadget Show series 18

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

Completely unsourced, and no other series of this TV show has its own article. Day Creature (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not !voting at this point, but I will note that much of the material is a summary of episodes, and per WP:PLOTREF doesn't need a reference stated, as the episodes are presumed to be the source. I will also note that the page had references when it was created (although pulling one of those references out of the archive suggests we may have WP:COPYVIO problems). The references were removed in 2023 by an IP editor who was apparently unaware of how to deal with dead links. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 19 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) 18:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No other series of this program have dedicated article, so it's a question of should they all have their own articles or should this one be deleted. I would tend towards deletion as it's not routine to make individual pages for a shows series, and Wikipedia isn't a directory either. GeekBurst (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A newspapers.com search for the UK is not pulling up any significant coverage for this particular season, at least not while it was on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions on specific outcomes would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Gadget_Show GeekBurst (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Council on Nanotechnology

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

This does not appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 19 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) 20:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Found some sources, [5][6][7][8], but I have to do some more digging to see if they're reliable/WP:INDY. GoldRomean (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo de Garis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBLP. (Definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF.) Leaving out the first-party sources and blogs, all that remains are:

two Wired articles from '97: basically interviews, one explicitly calls him "fringe"
the BBC article from '99: somewhere between credulous and Britishly bemused
the 2010 Geraci book: does mention him a bunch of times, but only as an example of a transhumanist / posthumanist / extropian / I guess we would call this TESCREAL now?

We also know now that his research program was not successful in creating artificial brains, let alone planet-sized ones. That doesn't invalidate any of the sources but it does put them in a different light. It's not at all clear that he originated any of these concepts: most were established scifi tropes well before he started his research. I did do a WP:BEFORE search, which is when the two Wired articles were added. As far as I can tell, with the available reliable sources, he isn't notable outside of a certain segment of the internet. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep that his project failed doesnt mean he is not notable. I checked Google Scholar and found multiple (10+) papers with over 100 citations which is generally at the threshold but usually enough for passing WP:NPROF#1 and on top of that we have media coverage over his (failed) project which also counts towards GNG. I also found a full chapter on him in the book The Path to Posthumanity (pg 57 onwards). Taken together: I would say (weak) notability for NPROF and weak/okay notability with regards to GNG which leads me to conclude that notability is established and there is no reason to delete a reasonable, well sourced, quite NPOV article about the subject. --hroest 15:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned about a keep argument based purely on citation counts, since several of the publications were coauthored, and their numbers aren't that big for a high-citation field and for potentially accumulating citations since the '90s. (Also, the Google Scholar link above doesn't work; try searching just with his first initial instead.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that just citation counts can be deceiving, but while I'm not sure my direction (hence a comment), we should take into account that the field was significantly lower-citation in the 1990s and reference counting from then wasn't as good as it is now. When I vote it'll probably be mostly based on the Path to Posthumanity chapter, not citation numbers. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Path to Posthumanity was written by Ben Goertzel, who has collaborated with de Garis on quite a few articles. It's not independent by any measure. Apocheir (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- that's important to know. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete based upon failing WP:NPROF. Similar to others above, I am not convinced by the citation numbers claim by hroest. I make his h-factor somewhere in the 25-30 range, which is low for a high citation field. Having a few > 100 cited articles is significantly less (in most of science) than what is typically discussed at WT:NPROF and AfD. If others can persuade me of a WP:GNG pass I will change my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Feature‐length coverage in Wired (1997), BBC News (1999), and secondary academic works (e.g., Geraci’s Apocalyptic AI) demonstrates significant independent attention, and Google Scholar shows well over the WP:NPROF #1 threshold (≥10 papers with 100 + citations), so the subject meets both GNG and NPROF. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced that the citation record is enough for WP:NPROF, but I think he meets GNG. In addition to the BBC and WIRED sources already discussed, here are just a few of the additional sources available on Newspapers.com: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I see multiple pieces of feature-length coverage in reliable newspapers, which is more than enough to pass GNG. MCE89 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, here's a lengthy profile of him in The New York Times Magazine and another solid piece I found on Newspapers.com: [14]. MCE89 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to have the same story over and over in Gnewspapers [15], [16], [17]. Has authored some things in Gscholar, but no book reviews found. I don't see enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the sources I've posted above? I think the Sydney Morning Herald and New York Times Magazine profiles are particularly strong GNG-qualifying sources, in addition to the BBC and WIRED articles. MCE89 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fortunately we don't need to decide whether he's an academic, innovator, crank, fringe, whether his ideas are visionary or misguided, whether there will be an apocalypse or anything else: he got written-about in lots of respectable places, as catalogued by MCE89, which means he was a notable version of whatever you classify him as. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and NPROF. Sources are good as well. Additional sources also presented.BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, as explained by MCE89 and Aeon Sentinel. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MCE89 has provided easily enough strong sources to meeet GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Keep this is not just a SHIELD technology, but rather influences the entire Marvel comics universe and is mirrored in other media. GNG is met, NOPAGE arguments are not convincing, and the main SHIELD article is already very busy, as it seems to have is tentacles into everything Marvel... Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 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 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 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.

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. Owen× ☎ 06:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 August 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 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 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 [18], Business Standard [19], BusinessMatter [20] 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 [21] ; [22], [23], [24]. --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 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 [25] 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. [26] An in-depth review on the topic by Harvard Business Review, Why “Living Intelligence” Is the Next Big Thing. [27], Other good and independent article on the topic by AOL, Exploring "Living Intelligence," a Merging of AI, Sensors, and Biotech. [28] 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.