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

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]

History of the metre

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

Redirect to History of the metric system, merging small amounts that aren't essentially duplicated or better covered there.

This article is functionally a fork of History of the metric system, which includes pretty much everything this article might if fully developed. This article's also exceptional; we don't have "History of" articles for other units like the kilogram, second or ampere.

The forking is something of a wiki-historical accident; this article began as "Redefinition of the Metre in 1983", a redefinition in terms of the speed of light which at least one editor thought very foolish. This article may have been created to corral that issue but long arguments about it continued across many articles leading to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, this article narrowly survived an AfD but its scope was soon expanded to History of the metre, and activity on this article died down. Meanwhile History of the metric system was created, continued to be developed, and was a GA until recently. It already has much well-written well-sourced content about the history of the metre itself and its context, but broadly speaking without the digressions that this article has sometimes included.

As this isn't a new article, it seems (I've not done this before) that WP:ATD-R applies: discuss on talk page first, but if consensus is lacking, go to AfD for discussion with the wider community. Opinion at History of the metre#Redirect to History of the metric system? was divided 2:2 and so though long discussion there just might reach unanimity either way, it seems better to come here as WP:ATD-R's preferred venue. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Engineering, and Technology. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be merged to Metre#History of definition, not redirected to History of the metric system. I actually don't see much duplication between the two history articles at all, I see two distinct topics with very different content. There is a lot of metre-specific history that isn't tied to the metric system as a whole and this could even be expanded. Much of History of the metre#From standard bars to wavelength of light would be out of place at History of the metric system. But for now at least, metre is relatively short and so its history could be merged there, if not kept separate if expanded. I agree with StarryGrandma on the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Moorman

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

[1], [2] - These two are announcement of CEO appointment of Jay Moorman. [3]-I am unable to read this as this website blocked at my place. If someone can read, please check this. [4], [5]-These two look biography. [6]-This is a passing mention. [7]-This is about the company, his name is only passing mention. It is hard to find any significant coverage about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, and United States of America. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess you should delete it. It doesn't really have to do with much. Floating Orb (talk) 01:38, 7 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]

PayChangu

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

Unclear notability. The majority of the current sources ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) 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]
Keep – 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 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]

Rackspace Technology

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria
— User:Julian in LA 18:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

They previously attempted to PROD this with the same rationale, but after getting a seconding it was declined due to the article's sourcing. I offer no opinion or comment on that or anything else; I am merely procedurally nominating an article that had its talk page nominated instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add that Julian in LA gives further elaboration on their opinion of the sources on the talk page. (Again, I am neutral and offer no opinion of my own.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, China, Hong Kong, India, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Texas, and Virginia. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at google scholar found an entire chapter on the company in Beginning PostgreSQL on the Cloud : Simplifying Database As a Service on Cloud Platforms (2018). And articles like this[15] about a service outage and this [16] about the company's future were already in the article. And articles like Rackspace Hires Morgan Stanley to Help Evaluate Options [17] round out the picture that this is a significant market player.
I've looked at the talk page analysis and am still puzzled as to the logic behind this nomination. I would encourage @Julian in LA to spend time participating in NCORP/NORG AfD's before attempting further nominations. Oblivy (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to complain about Netherzone adding this to the deletion sorting lists of every country where the company has an office, but hey, look, they get sigcov here too [18][19][20]. So, thanks Netherzone! Toadspike [Talk] 07:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article isn't perfect, but the large list of references appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rigaku

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. A search of Newspapers.com, Google and JSTOR revealed no notability. Ldm1954 commented that "They are a famous maker of x-ray equipment." Fame is not the same as notability and nothing in the sources indicates that they are more widely known than dozens of other multinational technology companies.
— User:Julian in LA 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My involvement is merely procedural; I am neutral and offer no opinion or further comment (beyond that Ldm1954 (talk · contribs)'s comments are in the context of declining a PROD). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Technology, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural, to clarify, @Julian in LA did nominate it via a PROD which I contested . They then inappropriately nominated it for AfD on the talk page, which I reverted indicating that it needed to be done at the main page. Since they meant to do an AfD let's run with this. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller explanation is at Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku. Julian in LA (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical correction, the location is Talk:Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku, which is for the original PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The nom is a new editor, and I do not think that they did a proper WP:Before and are not that familiar with how we define notability. These instruments are used in many academic and technological areas. All major research universities have several x-ray diffractometers, and a good fraction of these are from Rigaku. They are heavily used for quality control in industry in areas ranging from metallurgy to pharmaceuticals. Even conservatively with one paper per week per university using this equipment, we reach many thousands per year, which is what there is. A Google Scholar search on Rigaku yields > 400K hits. If you just limit it to "Rigaku diffractometer" then it is ~14,000, and a similar search just on Google yields 25,000 Unfortunately it appears that the nom did not search appropriately. I have seen people arguing that a few mentions in Google Scholar and/or JStor is enough to justify a commercial page; the number here is way beyond that.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I am finding sources in a before search on Google Books, Scholar, news, JSTOR, and etc. I am flummoxed as to why this was prodded and then nominated for deletion. Perhaps the nominator can elaborate? Netherzone (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add to my comment above: clearly meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG based on numerous sources in peer-reviewed academic journals. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here from this nominator's other talk page nomination, WP:Articles for deletion/Rackspace Technology. The nominations seem to be made in good faith, so I don't think any of the speedy keep criteria apply. However, someone could still close this as a SNOW keep if it becomes clear that this is where the consensus is headed. Toadspike [Talk] 07:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rigaku is covered by reliable independent sources. For example, News Medical Life Science), Forbes, and Reuters. The company has a long history and extensive scientific use, meeting WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated two out of a dozen or more pages on [Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests] to see how the community regards WP:COMPANY and WP:LISTED.

These pages are written by PR firms and contain little other than the company logo, a statement that they are "leaders in" some vaguely defined industry, an equally vague list of their products, the stock price, the current CEO and a long, long list of other companies they have swallowed up. This is of interest only to investors who can't afford a subscription to Morningstar and tax accountants who can't afford a subscription to Capital Changes Reporter (https://www.nypl.org/node/424884).

The fact that one or more of the company's products are widely used suggests a product page under WP:PRODUCT or perhaps a mention in a more generic page on the product category, such as x-ray diffractometers. It is unlikely that the researchers who use these care who the current CEO is and what mergers they have made. In other words, having a notable product or having an entry in a notable market does not make the company notable. Julian in LA (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: if all publicly traded companies are notable, are any of their COE edits immaterial or trivial? Here are the current edit requests for Rigaku. I feel silly checking them out one at a time:

Increase the employee count by 67 (really!). There is a comment on the talk page that neither the new nor old numbers are reliable.

Add the date that their current CEO's appointment was announced.

Add their new Boston office to the list of locations.

Add "semiconductor metrology instruments" and LIBS analyzers to the already long list of products.

Increase their annual revenue by ¥28 billion or 40%. The editor points out that the old figure is two years old, but it was out of date as soon as the next annual report was issued. A huge increase through internal growth would be noteworthy, but if it came from buying up other companies, it's not. Those 67 new employees are generating a whole lot of revenue.

The company was acquired by the Carlyle Group in 2021 and made an IPO in 2024. They seem very pleased at the price they got for their stock, but there is no indication as to what they are going to do with all that money. More acquisitions? I guess we could go searching for the prospectus to answer that. Julian in LA (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Dictionary

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

Could not find any sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damco Solutions

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

This IT services company fails to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP, since I cannot locate any substantial coverage to fulfill notability standards. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, India, Haryana, United States of America, and New Jersey. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent significant coverage, a PR induced article. - The9Man ^Talk 06:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can find meets WP:ORGCRIT. Note that the Forbes references (at least the links to the ones working) fall under WP:FORBESCON. The rest is routine coverage, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the rationale of the nominator strangely similar to some other suspicious nominations and is too generic, LLM-created. The page has the problems with some of the sources not notable, but I see Insurance Journal, Computer Weekly and several other to be notable and covering the subject in enough depth.--Nuerkran (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those appear to be broken links, and don't show up at archive.org. Can you supply direct links to the material you're seeing there? You're noting "several others", but the rest appear to be paid placement and press material. Which others do you feel are significant? Sam Kuru (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same junk sources used at the redirect hijack here, and at the deleted spam page here. Some clear SEO blackhat sites removed, including some blatant promotional language. The rest is just press releases and broken links. Looking around, I could not locate anything other than more PR and a ton of seedy paid placement in the usual sites. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:14, 6 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]

Taiwo Kola-Ogunlade

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources for this page largely fall into two categories:

Non-WP:SIGCOV sources where the subject is simply quoted [21] [22] [23] or his name is mentioned as winning a prize [24] [25].
Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as organizations where the subject has worked or spoken [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

The best source is this article [31] but it is setting off promotional red flags for me. Why is a South African newspaper writing a profile of a Google West Africa employee with no connection to the country? Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and Nigeria. Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Ultima 512

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

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced / only primary sources if deadlines rescued. Encoded Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to manufacturer. noi independent notability --Altenmann >talk 03:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Photron: No evidence of notability for the product itself. Owen× ☎ 07:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Ultima 40K

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

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced / only primary sources if deadlines rescued. Encoded Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to manufacturer. no independent notability --Altenmann >talk 03:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Photron: No evidence of notability for the product itself. Owen× ☎ 07:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Super 10K

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

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced. Encoded Talk 💬 22:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded Talk 💬 22:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to manufacturer. noi independent notability --Altenmann >talk 03:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Photron: No evidence of notability for the product itself. Owen× ☎ 07:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Spectra

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

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced. Encoded Talk 💬 22:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded Talk 💬 22:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to manufacturer. no independent notability --Altenmann >talk 03:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Photron: No evidence of notability for the product itself. Owen× ☎ 07:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM SE

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

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Can't find much online about it. Might be best to merge into Photron. Encoded Talk 💬 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded Talk 💬 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to manufacturer. noi independent notability --Altenmann >talk 03:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Photron: No evidence of notability for the product itself. Owen× ☎ 07:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own Technology

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

WP:NORG doesn't pass, no sigcov in article, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Technology, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 262

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

Not finding WP:SIGCOV in independent sources; my WP:BEFORE search turns up plenty of non-independent sources (e.g. [32][33]), but nothing substantial. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Organization for Standardization or Draftify as as ATD, as it is, lacks citations, even contents are yet to be filled, barely a stub.Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorraine Crane: I'd oppose a redirect, given it is not mentioned at the target. Generally, WP:ATD-I is only applicable when there is a good chance of improvement and/or there is a good reason to believe it will be notable soon (e.g. it is an event schedule to occur soon). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If draftification is all we are going to do, I'd support that. But I'll be shocked if that amounts to anything more than WP:G13. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

N/C in 2017, and I think it's time for another look as corp depth still does not appear to be there in WP:SIRS Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Michigan. Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are very normal corporate business sources, not ones that establish notability by Wikipedia standards. PickleG13 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Profile: Material Sciences Corporation". Noise & Vibration Worldwide. 38 (7). Sage Publishing: 21–22. July 2007. doi:10.1260/0957-4565.38.7.21. EBSCOhost 26045472.
  According to this page, Noise & Vibration Worldwide is a peer-reviewed journal. The article notes: "Material Sciences Corporation provides material-based solutions for acoustical and coating applications that address noise, temperature problems in the automotive, HVAC, electronics, power equipment, and construction industries. Founded in 1971 the company now has 600 employees in the US, Europe, and Asia and a network of partners on four continents. In fiscal 2006, MSC had net sales of $287 million and net income of $5.2 million. MSC has one of the largest independent sound engineering laboratories in North America, an application research centre located in Canton, MI."
2. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues. ... Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals. ... As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market."
3. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the money losing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as anti-vibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest."
4. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors. Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances. In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks. ... Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford."
5. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  From Cengage.com:
  When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.
  The book notes:
  Public Company
  Incorporated: 1971
  Employees: 740
  Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
  Stock Exchanges: New York
  Ticker Symbol: MSC
  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
  
  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
  
  Founding the Company in 1971
  
  MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
  The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
6. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
  Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
  Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
  Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
  Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
  Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
  Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
  Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
7. Hoover's had an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes: "Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US."
  Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail. Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation 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) 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite torn on this one, but are you volunteering to fix the article and add something beyond numbers and timelines of announcements? Your rebuttal to the proposal to delete this is at least one order of magnitude longer than the article. FalconK (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already found several of these on the last AFD and I am unconvinced of WP:CORPDEPTH. I suppose it depends if the Nelson Forbes pieces are significant. IgelRM (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of potentially useful sources linked to help but would love a bit more discussion before closing this out. Relisting in hopes of getting a bit more attention, will see if I can ping some noticeboards to take a look as well..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer effect

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

Mutual inductance and Inductive coupling already have much more information here. The transformer effect certainly is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this, either. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - what are you suggesting should happen? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nom that the term is rarely used. It refers to the effect in which an emf is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. (see [34] and [35]). It is usually discussed in electrodynamics textbooks under the topic Faraday's law of induction. Given this, I propose that we merge to Faraday's law of induction, and create a redirect from the more common term, transformer emf, to that page. The coverage at the target article should also be expanded. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added discussion about transformer emf to Faraday's law of induction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer. There is nothing useful in this article to merge, it is high-school physics without sources. The name is not in common use, and I suspect is a literal translation from another language. It seems to have been created much earlier in WP history when the policy about what to include and verification was more open. I would also be OK with a simple delete, as a Google search mainly brings up pages on Transformer-syle robots. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer, as there is not any brilliant prose or even cited content worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, transformer seems like a wrong target. In those sources that care to define "transformer effect", e.g. this, it includes any effect from changing magnetic flux to a stationary circuit, similar to transformer emf. In particular, it includes the interaction between a circuit and a moving magnet, which is unrelated to what happens in a transformer. That's why I suggested Faraday's law of induction above. If we decide that it generally does not have a well-defined meaning, then we should delete it or link to Electromagnetic induction, which is the broadest article in the topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with either of those as redirect destinations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inductance#Mutual inductance, where Mutual induction also redirects. In 2006 the first sentence of the first version of this article read The Transformer Effect, or Mutual Induction, describes one of the processes by which an electromotive force (e.m.f.) is induced. So it was meant as an article on what we usually refer to as mutual induction. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Mutual inductance: The original intent of the author of the WP article does not matter, especially when the assertion that "transformer effect" is synonymous with mutual induction is unsourced. It is more important how the term is used in the literature. L.V. Kite (1974) An introduction to linear electric circuits discusses mutual inductance and says The phenomenon we have discussed here is the is the transformer effect. It occurs in circuits which are fixed in position, and should not be confused with the related phenomenon known as the dynamo effect, which depends for its existence on relative motion. This does not yet tell us whether he considers transformer effect synonymous with mutual inductance or whether it is more general phenomenon. However, he also says later that self induction [...] is obviously an additional manifestation of transformer effect. Here's another source that considers self-inductance in connection with the transformer effect: [36]. This indicates that Mutual inductance is a narrower concept than the transformer effect. Anyway, this is such a niche term that I am not strongly opposed to Mutual inductance as a target if it helps closing the AfD, since mutual inductance does lead the reader to the general topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Labs

(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) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Technology, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a great number of articles published in respectable and trustworthy sources to assert the subject's notability. WP:NCORP is a meeting. LKBT (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There are number of articles published but that doesn't justify the notability of the article. This company page is totally written in a promotional manner and doesn't have anything which is notable worthy like awards.Almandavi (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC) (sock block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concurrence with Nom and User: Almandavi in toto, besides which, there does not seem to be particular significance to the company in general. One of their headline products, Agastya seems to lack any major adopters, and the publicly facing version on WordPress was last updated in 2019. Augmenta11y is gone from the Google Play Store, and is listed under a different name and different publisher in the Apple App Store. Valmiki, their web browser extension has been taken down from the Google Chrome Web store. SherivanOS is a concept that doesn't even have an alpha test out, and is, in all likelihood a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL in as many words. As far as I can tell, Oswald Labs has no products which are notable or commercially viable. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete vote was issued by a sockpuppet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason for deletion. User01938 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject lacks independent, significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 12:01, 4 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]