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

Ingelec

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and Morocco. 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)[reply]

Epoch Networks

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of obsolete technology

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

This article has very few sources. I looked at the sources online and there doesn't seem to be many reliable sources covering this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd probably !keep this if the items were sourced... This is too long for an unsourced article and seems willy nilly as a list. Typewriters and a toasting fork? Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A better place would be the list fandom. I have copied over the complete editing history of this article, all 167 revisions, to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_obsolete_technology Dream Focus 19:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful reference list in the history of science, not merely a fun collection. I majored in Science, Technology, and Society in college, and when considering theories of technological invention and adoption, this field is often driven by case studies. I did a DDG search for "obsolete technologies" and got a ton of listicles, so creating a list like this is definitely not an original idea. Listicles are not reliable sources, but all the listed items have articles and are mentioned in history of technology articles, and it's perfectly possible to go through and pull reliable sources documenting that each specific technology has been partly or completely replaced by others. Yes, when lists like these are scoped to the entirety of human invention, technologies in very different fields will be included. Typewriters and toasting forks share an interesting attribute in common; when you collect a few of these technological case studies into a coherent theory, you get books like The Innovator's Dilemma. We do have List of emerging technologies, which similarly requires compilation across all of human invention scoped to a specific attribute, and we've managed to do an excellent job sourcing that. List of obsolete technology is currently being a list of examples to illustrate the Technological section of Obsolescence, but could be better organized and linked with throughlines in other articles. For example, we have History of timekeeping devices which describes the obsolescence of several listed items; I'll link that in now. If this is kept, I can work on pulling in sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the listicles actually do come from sources WP:RS/PS marks as reliable, like this one from Gizmodo. If publications covering the state of technology find it useful to make collections of notable obsolete technologies, it seems reasonable for Wikipedia to have the most comprehensive and well-referenced version of that, which combines the lists and individual examples from a variety of sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad a criterion. MS-DOS, floppy disk, ship of the line, chariot, corset, icebox, rickshaw, slide rule, etc., where does it end? Every technology becomes obsolete eventually. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of technologies haven't and won't forseeably become obsolete - knife, shoe, mirror, bicycle, loudspeaker. At bottom, the list should be limited by notability - technologies that don't have a Wikipedia article don't need to be listed. But well before that, technologies can be grouped by type and a link provided only to an overview article. For example, List of emerging technologies doesn't list every single product or specific invention in a given emerging area (e.g. genetic engineering is listed, not CRISPR). So List of obsolete technology doesn't need to include everything in, for example, Category:Discontinued software, but should look more like a list version of Category:Obsolete technologies. The benefit of a list over a category is that a list can add context as to why a technology was abandoned, mention the replacement technology if any, and be sortable by date. -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of technologies haven't and won't forseeably become obsolete - Knife, shoe, mirror, bicycle, loudspeaker. What is the technology of a knife? The material used? The method of production? The blade shape or sharpening method? Is a knapped obsidian or flint a knife? Is it obsolete? There are some niche applications (e.g., surgical) where obsidian blades are used, does this mean they're not obsolete? – We can have the same discussion on shoes (clogs? hand-stitching of shoes? lotus shoes?), on mirrors (polished bronze mirrors? tin-mercury mirrors? there are also certainly changes in mounting and other features that could be listed as well), on bicycles (those before pedal power, the penny farthing and others with vastly different wheel sizes, pre-pneumatic tires, changes in gear technology, wheel construction such as radial spokes...), or on loudspeakers (see this article by a specialist source or this review of 50 years of specialized publications...). Unless there is a significantly better framing for the article I struggle to see how this article can be kept. That there are other bad lists or categories on Wikipedia is not a defense for this article. Shazback (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT, as there's absolutely no reasonable way to decide what qualifies as "obsolete". The claimed definition in the lead isn't even remotely adhered to in the body of the list (and doesn't make much sense anyway). Indeed, a significant portion of the entries on the list even admit that they're still in use, so are they truly obsolete or not? And as pointed out above, this is so broad and universal (in the way that practically everything becomes obsolete eventually), that's it's essentially useless to readers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, listicles don't count toward demonstrating notability! They're low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about notability of the individual technologies or the idea of technological obsolescence? Each of the individual technologies listed needs to demonstrate notability independent from being obsolete. The general idea that technologies become obsolete is certainly notable apart from listicles - it's well-studied academically, including case studies and comparisons. See for example, the huge number of Google scholar matches. Beland (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of technological obsolescence being notable in no way justifies the existence of this list, which is what I'm claiming isn't notable (in addition to being too broad and ill-defined in the first place); see WP:NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that page says sometimes lists are kept for informational purposes regardless of notability. -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any issues with notability. With the rise of AI and other technological advancements, this article is only going to become more important. Shankargb (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is ... not a valid keep rationale. Pure WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ITSIMPORTANT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. I'm pretty sure that this unwieldy list has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. It also fails WP:LISTCRIT, which reminds us that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists.--DesiMoore (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very unnecessary list. If this was actually every single major obsolete technology it would be going on for a lot. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a highly subjective list which seems to be entirely self-contradictory: a list of technologies no longer used ("superseded by newer technologies") but with a column in the table showing where each is still, in fact, used - sometimes "frequently"! It is one great big mess of original research: who is it who decided that these entries are indeed obsolete rather than complementary and/or not just evolutions of the same technology they supposedly obsoleted? Where is the sourcing for any of the claims and explanations presented as fact? What is there now should be removed promptly, and it should not come back in anything like its current form. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very vague criterion. What constituate as a "obsolete"?. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Might those in favour of keeping this list explain how this requirement is met here? TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strong delete. The definition of the list itself is strongly lacking ("obsolete" is defined as "unavailable from the manufacturer in accordance with the original specification"... which is not relevant to technology which does not depend on an individual manufacturer -- then again, "technology" is not defined either, so really it's a guess what can be included). WP:BEFORE reveals there's very limited discussion of this as a topic, with most articles being listicles on high-tech related topics, usually focused on electronic devices, and many of these articles are really nothing more than opinion pieces, with no actual discussion of the criteria used, or actual analysis of why the elements listed were selected or measured for "obsolescence". Further, this is an article that contradicts itself plenty of times, requiring a column named "still used for", clearly demonstrating that plenty of the items listed are not fully obsolete, just niche or less common applications, as well as an entire section on "co-existing technologies"... All in all a case where deletion is in my opinion required. Shazback (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Giggles

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antahpragnya

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

Flagged as AI-generated by Editor113u47132, unclear notability. -- Beland (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and India. Beland (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sole source is a BusinessWire press release. Other sources that I turn up are the same or other press releases, republished elsewhere, and RGUKT's own publications. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran the article through ZeroGPT and it returned a result of 80.67% human-written. While it definitely needs cleanup and still has to demonstrate notability, I don’t think there’s sufficient reason to label it as AI-generated. I’ve gone ahead and removed the AI-generated tag. HerBauhaus (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now includes broad, independently sourced coverage of the 2020 Antahpragnya event from The Hindu and The New Indian Express (both WP:RS), along with regional coverage from The Hans India (WP:V). This satisfies WP:GNG for Antahpragnya 2020. Given that coverage is currently limited to this single event, narrowing the scope to "Antahpragnya 2020" would be more appropriate. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per new sources above which should suffice for RS, V. I briefly copy-edited the lead which ought to improve its standing. ‒overthrows 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

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

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U GamePad: per nom. Sources do not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Toys. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced reception section shows notability, (sources like this are in-depth, and by third party reliable sources], and the subject would be an WP:UNDUE issue to fully cover the topic at the GanePad article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also baffled by the nominator's comment about the PlayStation Portal. It is, at best, completely irrelevant, and, at worst, completely against their own argument, as there is RS commentary about how off tv play did it better. There's articles saying that off tv play is the Wii U's legacy even. Very misguided. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad This is just an feature of the Wii U GamePad- not notable enough for an independent article. TzarN64 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this were just the list of games that supported Off-TV play, it would clearly be reasonable, and would not be appropriate to merge back to Wii U or other articles. That more can be added to discuss development and its reception such that it is more than just a list seems to make sense to have this as its own article separate from the console or controller. Masem (t) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCESEXIST, please cite where the development information and major reception is. So far there has only been one cited source solely about the Off-TV Play feature. Re: Articles about the gamepad, there is already a gamepad article of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read their comment, they did not make a SOURCESEXIST violating argument in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U Gamepad. This subject is almost entirely tied to its usage in the Gamepad, and is reflected in nearly all of the coverage. The bulk of arguments for keeping do not take into account Wikipedia:NOPAGE, which very strongly applies to this situation given the subject overlap, which would allow for a greater understanding of both subjects if they were to be discussed together. A separate article is not necessary in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think an attempt at talk page discussion would have been beneficial before nominating. Still, I struggle with the title "Off-TV Play", which sounds confusing/ambiguous outside the Wii U context. I don't think it's a good article as is, I'm unsure what the opposition to a merge is here. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The feature does appear to have reputable coverage and reception, and merging the information of this article into the GamePad article would either require a disproportionately long section or, if trimmed, would create a WP:UNDUE issue. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camera, hand lens, and microscope probe

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

Fails GNG. For reference, CHAMP was a proposed instrument that doesn't seem to have been included in the Mars Science Laboratory. Originally proposed at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090007927 - all sources I can find are either primary (authored by one or more of the inventors) or mention the instrument only in passing. Deprodded on account of Google Scholar hits, but I don't think any of those articles are secondary. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Spaceflight. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all conference papers, as far as I can find. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its all conference papers honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla house

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

Does not appear to be an official prototype (vs Cybercab) or proposed product other than appearance at a couple random shows. Not significant coverage to support notability on its own. Could just be mention in Tesla Energy. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This prototype/concept has been shown in numerous Australia cities and at two LA Auto Show. Wikipedia has many pages of prototype/concept products. Wikipedia does not exclude prototypes, upcoming products if they are noteworthy. This is noteworthy prototype, not from some small un-noteworthy company.

If you deleted this page you need to remove other prototype/concept pages (go remove these first):

WikiHouse Not a product - go remove in first!
Xanadu Houses
Futuro
Edison Portland Cement house
Volvo VESC
Porsche 989
Pontiac Club de Mer
Pontiac Bonneville Special
Mercedes-Benz C111
Mazda Suitcase Car
Airbus CityAirbus
Big Mac (computer)
City of Everett (aircraft)
Fiat ESVs
Lanchester petrol-electric car
Pacerailer
Single-hole cassette
Xerox NoteTaker
Yehudi lights

and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a very convincing arguement. Need to show the merits of this particular subject and whether it meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a clear GNG pass - the sources are all promotional or are about a different house. (I actually thought this was going to be an ill advised AfD about the house in Smiljan.) SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Tesla, Inc or if they have more than one product that never made it out of concept/prototyping, perhaps that should be a standalone article. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources listed in the article are promotional. The recently added source from "gatorrated" is an unreliable blog post with what appears to be an AI generated image that only exists on the blog. I am not seeing any developments on the tesla house since ~2018.

Agree with Zala that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument to keep. Many of the articles listed by telecineguy are well-sourced and establish the notability of their subjects with independent, non-promotional material (e.g. City of Everett (aircraft)) not to mention many led to actual products.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ WikiHouse is not a product, why are you not marking it "Delete"? This is not a AI generated image. It was shown at two LA auto shows and in many Australia cities.Telecine Guy (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so, I did a strikethrough on your duplicitous "Keep" since you already have that above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every product made by Tesla is notable, especially if it's just a prototype. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of its tour of Australia when I search for "Tesla tiny house", eg this article in Architect Magazine [1]. Whether it's enough for an independent article, or whether it could be merged to Tesla, Inc. (where it currently isn't mentioned at all), I'm not sure. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's better to look for new sources as RebeccaGreen already did and the one from Architecmagazine is a decent one. I also found and added CNET https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-tows-tiny-house-around-australia-with-model-x/, PCmag https://uk.pcmag.com/science-space/90704/tesla-is-touring-australia-with-a-tiny-house, Mashable https://mashable.com/article/tesla-tiny-house-solar-energy. Unicorbia (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources, and I don't want to spam with them here. Also, one should google "Tesla tiny house" instead of "Tesla house" Unicorbia (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as to keep or not, but feel the info should be merged somewhere if not straight up kept. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some calls to merge the article, but I don't think there's enough input to see a consensus for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been able to find articles that show notability? The brief time period where tesla showed off a prototype (summer/fall 2017) has quite a few in reliable sources, but most just say the tiny house was on tour and maybe give a brief description of the Tesla products included (Tesla solar Tesla battery Tesla model X Tesla electronics etc.). This just seems like tesla was promoting their available products, not truly developing a tiny home for production. There is not much in the way of continued coverage, and more recent articles tend to point back to events 2017.

Politifact covered recent social media posts claiming that Elon Musk was building a low cost house and stated there is not evidence and that the 2017 house was "only a model." Sticking with my earlier vote.

From what I've seen, I'd argue this was more of an event than a true prototype. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a review from 2021-2022 on Fatherly https://www.fatherly.com/gear/elon-musk-boxabl-house. It provides some details and general comparison and so on. Might be good for notability issues. Unicorbia (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is about Musk's Boxabl house, not the "Tesla house" demonstrator in the article under discussion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]