Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Master Inventor

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 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Historyexpert2, what is your rationale for nominating these articles? C F A 💬 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
- The quality was not improved in a decade or more
- To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of seeing more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I can find several interviews with master inventors, and material from IBM, but the closest I could find to significant independent coverage is this article [1], which gives some background but is mostly about a single master inventor. But without at least one more source I don't think we have anything for an article. Plus, the level of detail currently in the article suggests it was written by an IBM insider and/or based on IBM (i.e. non-independent) sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't bothered to provide a rational why this article should be deleted. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds a bit WP:PROMO, cites no sources, and does not seem notable.SecretSpectre (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2024 (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.