Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

[edit]

Oxigen Services

[edit]
Oxigen Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article should be deleted due to its promotional tone, lack of reliable citations, questionable notability. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneArena

[edit]
PhoneArena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirisys

[edit]
Inspirisys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GSS Infotech

[edit]
GSS Infotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, funding, acquisitions news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
EClerx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mastek

[edit]
Mastek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, share price, profit/financial reporting, merger, demerger capacity expansion, overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the way the article is written feels like it’s mainly trying to promote or advertise something. Wikipedia:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Sharda

[edit]
Arjun Sharda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject is a child who got a couple of human interest pieces in local news when they started a nonprofit. A single purpose account decided to dodge the AFC queue after getting a decline on their draft (and COI warning besides), so here we are at AFD. There is no sustained coverage, and no real biographical details. This is a clear case of a WP:BLP1E and ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I suspect a WP:COI issue as well. wound theology◈ 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is some coverage of debatable significance, the COI point seems strong. Garsh (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi @Garsh2 @Wound theology. With all due respect, would I be able to provide you both some context in hopes of getting you both to reconsider your votes? WP:COI isn't the subject of this AfD, and even so, i've already disclosed in the past to MrOllie twice that I don't have a COI, and if I did, I would declare it. An article can be rewritten itself, but notability can't be changed, no matter how good an article is. The nominator (MrOllie) proposed that the article is WP:BLP1E and does not merit its own article about the subject itself, but the subject of the article is high-profile (intentionally seeking coverage about themselves or such through interviews, PR, etc), and their independent, reliable coverage has been sustained and not a quick burst. Given this, I would believe that the article falls into WP:GNG, but this is a debatable point, because the subject is a minor. At the very least, if you still believe that the article does not meet WP:GNG, I believe draftification would be a significantly better better option, given that notability is borderline/debatable here. Liahuu (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is not high-profile nor are the sources sustained. The subject is not notable as a coder nor as an author but simply as a 12-year-old who started a nonprofit. Founding a nonprofit is not notable in and of itself; I did it myself my senior year. WP:BLP1E still stands and WP:COI has not been sufficiently addressed. wound theology◈ 13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BLP1E, the subject is a high-profile individual. If you don't mind me asking - how are the sources not sustained? I can agree with you - the subject isn't notable as a coder or author, but is notable for their work with their organization.
I agree - founding a non-profit organization is not notable inherently, as many do. However, my main point was that the kid received extensive, significant coverage about he and his organization, from reliable sources which in my opinion would constitute notability. Again, i'm 100% open to debate about this, because the subject's notability is genuinely borderline and falls in a gray area.
As for WP:COI - how would you like me to address your concerns? With respect, i've addressed your concerns about a potential COI. I wanted to first write an article about the kid's nonprofit organization, but had the article draftified and was told by editors that the nonprofit organization itself hasn't received extensive coverage under WP:NGO, only the kid has. I was encouraged by editors to write about the kid - which I did. I asked around on the Wikipedia Discord and the Kiwi IRC, and the consensus has been 50/50 - a lot of editors have mentioned to me that they feel the article meets WP:GNG with the sources, but a lot of editors have also mentioned to me that this seems to feel like local coverage and that WP:BLP1E would be a strong case in any AfD discussion (which we can see, here). Liahuu (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hi @MrOllie! Much thanks for your explanation and review on this subject. I just wanted to clarify a few points.
  • First, you mention that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. You've already given me a COI warning on my talk page in the past, and i've appropriately responded to such answering that I am aware of such policy and will be disclosing any conflicts of interests I have with any subject. In this case, my reply explicitly mentioned that I do not have a connection to the subject. I also explicitly mentioned this to you on your talk page, for a different (but relevant) draft.
  • You're also falsely claiming that my account is a "single purpose account" - when, in reality, you're basing this claim off of the action I took to move my draft into the article space. Dodging the AFC queue is not inherently prohibited for autoconfirmed users, and given the long wait time, I explicitly clarified in my edit summary that I would be skipping a AFC review to get a review by a NPP in a faster time frame. You also claim "after getting a decline on their draft" - but if you noticed, that declined draft version was from early March 2025. If I had genuine ill intentions for Wikipedia, I could have easily dodged the AfC process, far earlier, and moved my rejected draft into the mainspace. I made a large amount of edits before resubmitting, and eventually moving my draft into the mainspace.
  • I would also like to mention that your review of my article about this subject is unjust - you proposed the deletion of my article 20 minutes after it was created, which is clearly in violation of WP:NPPHOUR, as the article does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD.
  • "There is no sustained coverage" - there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject, and over a sustained period of time. As you can see, the first article covering the kid founding the nonprofit was on January 2, 2024, while there are sources as late as June 2024 covering the kid founding the nonprofit. There's also coverage about the kid's nonprofit starting a new program, etc and the kid's coding skills. Compared to a traditional WP:BLP1E, this spike of coverage has been sustained and the kid is still "relevant", which is a indicator of notability. The subject further doesn't qualify for WP:BLP1E because they are not a low-profile figure, and (no offense) have made attempts to self-promote through press releases, scheduled interviews, and more, which, by definition, makes them a high-profile figure.
  • Could the article be expanded? Of course. This wasn't something I immediately did, especially given that the subject is WP:CHILD, and I don't want to write too much about them. However, I do definitely think that there are areas of improvement.
  • A huge majority of your statements seem to WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL - inaccurately portraying the context of the situation. I would strongly ask that you take edits from new editors like me with WP:GOODFAITH. I would love to discuss any potential issues, but would love to do so in a civil manner, instead of making false, slanderous claims.
Liahuu (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you are a single purpose account is not a 'false claim' - 100% of your editing is either about this person or their nonprofit. You've had more than a month to work on your draft, WP:NPPHOUR clearly does not apply - all that really matters in this AFD is that the coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and your decision to push for an article anyway. Trying to turn this around and making it about me personally will not change that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, i'm not trying to change the topic of this AfD onto you, and I apologize if you feel that way. Claiming that i'm a "single purpose account", though, is personally insulting to me (WP:CIVIL), given that you aren't aware of the future contributions I intend to make on this platform, and simply claiming me as a marketing/spam account is highly offensive and slander when i've clearly mentioned that I don't have a conflict of interest about the subject, and if I did, I would have declared that. However, the COI is not the topic of this AfD, so here's my take on notability.
As for notability, I have mentioned this in my previous answer, but there is a sufficient amount of notability for the subject, which is the primary concern here and the reason this article has been nominated for AfD. WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here because the subject is high-profile (subject has intentionally decided to seek coverage and have published press releases in the past), and they've received sustained coverage (not a burst of coverage in a month or two). By means of WP:GNG, the subject is notable due to independent coverage in multiple sources. Liahuu (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As MrOllie (talk · contribs) explained, as it stands, you are a single-purpose editor. Possible intent to make future contributions elsewhere are irrelevant. Your only edits on Wikipedia have been related to TLEEM and Sharda, therefore you are a single-purpose editor. It really is that simple, and MrOllie was not being uncivil by pointing this out. Nor did he claim you were a marketing or spam account. You are casting aspersions which is itself uncivil. You should also read WP:WIKILAWYER. wound theology◈ 13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. For that, I apologize for my comments about those topics, since I can see why they have been misinterpreted, as I myself misinterpreted the definition of "single-purpose editor" itself. I also apologize if you felt that I am WP:LAWYERING (I can see how you feel that way). My comments had the sole intention of clarifying on specific points, and I did not mean to be uncivil myself. Liahuu (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note the Random Dude Here (talk · contribs) and Animelofi123 (talk · contribs). There only edits were to add WP:COI notices to their own user pages regarding this page, which presumably didn't exist. wound theology◈ 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrapod

[edit]
Quadrapod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article nothing more than a mere dictionary definition. searching in Google only gives me search results for quadrupeds, and 4-legged robots by the brand name Quadrapod. With nothing for the actual supposed term Quadrapod meaning 4 legged robots. Furthermore, the wikipedia page doesn't have any sources whatsoever. The article survived a proposed deletion, more information on its talk page. But I still believe this article has no chance, so want to bring this up here. Yelps :/ critique me 14:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Information Security Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all WP:RS. The UK report identifies the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice for Information Security as “widely used” and “covering the complete spectrum of information security arrangements.” Together these 3 sources provide independent coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cmus

[edit]
Cmus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? TheAwesomeHwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REVTeX

[edit]
REVTeX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planner (program)

[edit]
Planner (program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sawfish (window manager)

[edit]
Sawfish (window manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock (text editor)

[edit]
Hemlock (text editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociated press

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dissociated press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Emacs

[edit]
Doom Emacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom's github repository has 20k+ stars. For reference, Linux has 192k, spacemacs has 23k. Doom is a popular configuration framework for Emacs these days, and I don't think it's worth removing. Kuromedayo (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EMMS (media player)

[edit]
EMMS (media player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems blatantly non-notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ingelec

[edit]
Ingelec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable electrical equipment company which appears to be using phony sources. No evidence of meeting WP:NCOMPANY. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I agree the sources I used in the beginning weren't the best. I changed all of them and put only notable, independant sources. Datamanager3000 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just want to clarify my stance, as I forgot to include this in my original comment above. Datamanager3000 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be notable, they need to be reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say reliable sources. Datamanager3000 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

[edit]
Epoch Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Giggles

[edit]
Google Giggles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a real product, and not particularly notable hoax. Some of these sources aren't actually talking about Google Giggles but instead YouTube shorts, some are just talking about a meme. And a few of the sources just have the word Google Giggle together as an alliteration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my life depends on this article staying i will suffer if you delete google giggles wikipedia page 89.64.44.164 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: topic of discussion with significant coverage in several WP:RS, meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Lordralf (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No 208.75.175.44 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this is notable enough online to keep. Especially as long as short form content platforms exist online. Limedin32 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment - would like to note these keep votes are mostly new users with less than 10 edits. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=1286042898"