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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Roboboa

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

EdTech Impact

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

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

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

Iran's third uranium enrichment site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eulersidentity (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netcore Cloud

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is notable per NCORP, 'cause it has several reliable sigcov references, including Times of India bootstrap story about [2], Business Standard [3], BusinessMatter [4] while Economic Times also have good overview and independent thoughts on the topic. Insillaciv (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my online search suggests, the company is old and GNG-eligible as it has significant coverage in CNBC (Tv18)Economic Times, Business Day and other. Interestingly, it also received a critical (not pleasant) highlight about how Airtel India blocked Netcore services in article Airtel blocks Netcore services (Business Standard). It should be added to the page. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources 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]

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]
Merge into Chatbot psychosis. 3df (talk) 03:00, 11 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]

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]

PayChangu

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

Unclear notability. The majority of the current sources ([5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) 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]

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 ([12][13]) are very promotional by nature. And the one from ITweb Tumbuka Arch brought up appear to be a press release ([14]). 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 ([15]), which I can access now, it appears to cover the same publicity event as one of the Malawi24 articles ([16]). 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 ([17], 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 [18]and those partnerships with banks like Centenary bank [19] 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]

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 [20] 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]

[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]