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

Ravindra Kumar Mishra

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

Poorly referenced promo piece / CV on a non-notable civil servant. Declined at AfC but moved into the main space by the author. A bit too old to draftify now, and in any case BEFORE finds no evidence of notability either, so probably no point in prologing its misery. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Qingquan

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

I don’t see any notability based on what I can see from the article. I’m not sure if the sources contribute to WP:GNG, as I cannot read Chinese. Thanks. Lordseriouspig 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lordseriouspig 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a recognized and accomplished expert in his field as shown, among other things, by these two article-length profiles of him:

Sing Tao Daily News [1]
Science Net [2]

Note that he's a HK Bauhinia Star recipient, a second-rank honour but indicative of his importance. Oblivy (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, China, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above and the ones in the article. Also (with respect) I suggest the nominator consider using a translator (for example Google Translate inbuilt in Chrome) to check on the validity of foreign language sources before jumping into AFD in future. S5A-0043^Talk 06:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduja Tech

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

Does not meet NCORP, no reliable sources; superficial and WP Trivial media coverage only J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, Transportation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb

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

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

AfDs for this article:

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

I still believe this fails SIGCOV and notability for the same reasons discussed in the last AfD discussion two months ago. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough independent sources with significant coverage to meet the bar for WP:GNG. If that would not be the case, Alec Watson meets WP:NAUTHOR anyway. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you consider to meet the bar for each of those paths? Sdkb ^talk 14:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comment of DigitalIceAge. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting tedious. We have significant coverage about the channel itself in multiple reliable sources: The Physics Teacher source is expressely about his channel, the Lifehacker source dedicates over 100 words about his channel, Jancovic 2023 is a published book that spends an entire page praising Watson's deducition skills. Almost all of the rest of the sources contain enough editoralizing about his channel to constitute sigcov of Technology Connections. Per WP:WEBCRIT it passes the bar. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CalDigit

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

Does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Checking in Google News, there are hundreds (20 pages of links) of independent appearances in media. Still, it's true they are mostly reviews of their products, not talking about the company itself. The company consumer products have been pretty popular, but maybe that fame is not enough. Tbh I'm not sure. Janeender (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evenk hydroelectric power plant

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

Cited source not found. Project was abandoned many years ago https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247664/ Seems doubtful it is historically notable but maybe you know better? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, and Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Machines Channel

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

Article is entirely sourced to YouTube links, social media pages, or the channel's website. I cannot find any third-party sources. Giraffer (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Giraffer (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:WEB. The closest I could find to independent secondary coverage was a shoutout in Popular Mechanics [3] and a nearly-invisible video credit on Interesting Engineering [4], the latter of which is itself up for AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even then in the popular mechanics article, it appears to just be a nod to the content because the media on the page was sourced from the YouTube channel, a step above the minimum required attribution for a media company but does not even begin to come close to WP:SIGCOV required of the GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web content. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV and also non-notable. Xegma(talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite a whopping 21 citations, the article is basically unsourced since all references are to the YouTube channel itself or to the Mega Machines webpage. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Palmiter Bajorek

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

I have checked many references and find them to be a mixture of passing mentions and what Bajorek says. Otherwise this reads like a resumé. WP:ADMASQ and failed WP:BIO. The whole swathe of alleged references is WP:BOMBARD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that several of the sources in the article are primary and that others only make brief mentions of her but she is covered in a sufficient number of secondary sources to support notability. I am no expert in AI-related voice technology but some of the awards appear to be significant.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Technology, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has significant coverage in the AI Voice technology and her contributions/research have played a significant role in the AI voice technology which is covered in a sufficient number of secondary sources. She has also recieved notable language/speech/voice category awards from reputed Voice industry leaders. Her research has been referenced in few of the Language related articles: Mango Languages Smart speaker Techy.Sap (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)

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

No evidence found of notability, no independent reliable sources about this. Being offered on some sites is not the same as having the necessary sourcing about the subject. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and Brazil. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that this subject has a significant amount of traction on social media websites like Twitter/X, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. This is difficult to directly cite due to its lack of centralization and login requirements. Still, I would like to think that this subject is notable given that it achieved its publishers' requirements for quality. That said, this subject is relatively new, and I am sure that, in time, more direct evidence of notability will become available. Any suggestions to rectify this in the meantime are appreciated. DreamWeav3r95 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with 3D printed firearm per WP:PRODUCT. Right now I lean heavier towards deletion as the only sources relevant to the actual gun itself are from what looks like the designer's own website- the other sources make no mention of the gun. Getting social media traction is not in and of itself a qualifier for notability. Archimedes157 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have two interviews/podcast with the developer/designer

which are :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLD4geWKA4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmZ8dkvOwyM

Also, it is notable that It is the first Bullpup submachine gun/PCC that anyone can make in the world and not based on the FGC-9.

This design is not based on any previous gun design

the only thing it has in common with the fgc-9 is its barrel

I lean toward keeping this page Superlincoln (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
independent reliable sources of the Urutau :

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/tag/urutau/

https://3dprintgeneral.com/portfolio/the-brazilian-jstark-ze-carioca-3dpgp-ep19/

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yveilleuxlepage_about-an-hour-ago-the-files-for-the-urutau-activity-7231845456090165248-8Leu

https://ctrlpew.com/file-drop-the-urutau/ Superlincoln (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau is mentioned in Armament Research Services (ARES) Research Report 8: Desktop Firearms Desktop Firearms:

Emergent Small Arms Craft Production Technologies 2023 update page 30-31

https://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ARES-Research-Report-No-8-Desktop-Firearms-2023-Update-EARLY-ACCESS.pdf

I think this is enough independent reliable sources about the Urutau right? Superlincoln (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Terror: An Empirical Overview of the Use of 3D-Printed Firearms by Right-Wing Extremists:

However, recent developments within the 3DPF community are concerning, as they seem to focus on further lowering the barriers to entry for producing 3DPF. Noteworthy developments include the ‘Nutty 9,’ an improved bolt design for the FGC-9 consisting of nothing more than four nuts and two bolts screwed into a printed connector piece, and the development of the Urutau—a soon-to-be-released hybrid pistol-caliber carbine—that is said to be significantly easier to build than the FGC-9.

[5]https://ctc.westpoint.edu/printing-terror-an-empirical-overview-of-the-use-of-3d-printed-firearms-by-right-wing-extremists/

Urutau was mentioned in the 3D-Printed Firearms and Terrorism: Trends and Analysis Pertinent to Far-Right Use

5 times

[6]https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778663?seq=2 Superlincoln (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of 3D printed weapons and parts and/or FGC-9. I do not think this meets the GNG yet, though it might be close. The mentions in the academic papers are insufficient to establish notability since they are only trivial, passing mentions with no detail. However, the ARES Research Report is an independent source with several paragraphs on the Urutau. A LinkedIn post by an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada seems promising but he admits in the post to having lacking "expertise in that area" thus his post doesn't meet the expertise guideline for self-published sources. As for the blog posts, YouTube videos, and other primary sources, they (in my opinion) all fall well below the bar for verifiability. If another secondary source of the quality, independence and verifiability of the ARES Research Report can be found, I would change my vote. Richard Ye^talk 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different suggested Merge target articles. Of course, content can be merged to multiple articles but we need a primary article in order to close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure the new second amendment is what we're looking for as far a sourcing goes... This is about all the coverage there is [7], rest are un-RS. Seems like PROMO with most of the sourcing being primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to "3d printed firearms" is probably the best place to send it to. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into FGC-9 (the primary article) as the gun won't have been designed if FGC-9 did not exist and merge it into the List of 3D printed weapons and parts as the secondary article. Superlincoln (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still lean heavier towards delete, but more people seem to support a merge or at least not totally deleting the article, and I agree with Richard Ye that List of 3D printed weapons and parts is probably the best place to merge it. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Malabar Institute of Technology

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

This exists, but even the very stubby article doesn't prove it. Its own website server fails to respond. Not inherently notable. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Back in 2015 the creating editor twice removed a {{merge to}} template, refusing to discuss it. I am not averse to a merge if deemed appropriate 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kannur University. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and increase to a stub article. Win-win ending. Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Kellpb93ke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What does "win win ending" mean here? LibStar (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vandalism-only account so their comment should be disregarded. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Institute have no individual sources fails WP:NCORP. Xegma(talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finvasia

AfDs for this article:

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

An article about a finance company. Previous instances were soft-deleted at AfD (January 2022) and deleted at AfD in April 2024; this instance was created by a new editor, rejected at AfC in July, then moved into main space by the article creator. The present article content lists acquisitions and licenses which fall under WP:ORGTRIV; the most substantial references are the interview pieces in Times Now and Cyprus Business News, but these are presenting a company-aspirational view. I don't see sufficient coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Punjab. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concurring with nom, and also with the previous instances of soft-deletions at AfD. Although future notability might be possible from what seems to be emerging scandals about tech breaks coming to light. GuardianH (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Subversion Software

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

No RS found that uses this specific terminology to describe this class of software. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand more on my rationale, I'm aware (and not doubting the fact) that cybersecurity software exists that does this exact thing. However, there is literally no RS that calls it "anti-subversion software". Sohom (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malware#Antivirus_/_Anti-malware_software: unless a better target can be found. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as it is an obvious hoax, and maybe redirect it to the antivirus page. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Wikipedia appears to be the primary source for this term, which is never a good sign. Brandon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

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

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

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

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

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

Rocket drone

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

Poorly sourced with claims of significance being completely uncited. Other sources also note the "Rocket Drone" is a misconception as it in fact uses a jet engine and is also not a unique design as other kamikaze drones with jet engines already exist. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, Aviation, and Ukraine. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : It seems perhaps merging some of this content with either Precision-guided_munition or Loitering_munition or Cruise_missile would be right step. Though I'm not sure anyone publicly knows much for sure about Ukraine's rocket drone munition to know how it should be classified. Ukraine even claims it's brand-new technology, but I don't know enough about it to know if that's true. Perhaps "rocket drone" should be a re-direct to an appropriate page. The sourcing should not be an issue...there's plenty of Ukrainian government statements that they have made a "rocket drone" (or "missile drone"), you could improve the article yourself by adding those references. A lack of references isn't a reason for deletion, it's a reason to put "citation needed". The bigger reason to turn this into a re-direct is, as you point out, that it seems similar "jet drones" already exist, and "rocket drone" is just a Ukrainian-translated (or mis-translated?) term for the same thing. Unless Ukraine really has made something new, which we'll have to wait to find out. The wiki unfortunately doesn't really seem to contain any generic discussion of "jet drone" munitions. I looked at the link you supplied, and looking at the wiki, there's a page for the non-munition QinetiQ_Banshee, but the munition variant seems like a recent hack by the UK. But there's no generic page or content for such "jet drone" munitions. The situation is even worse for the HESA_Karrar where it's known to be a jet drone, but disputed whether it can even carry munitions, and no content in the wiki about it BEING a munition. There is the Shahed_drones#Shahed_238 that is described as a loitering jet munition...but nothing on the Loitering_munition page about anything jet-powered. So maybe merge some jet content into the Loitering_munition page and make "rocket drone" and "missile drone" redirect to Loitering_munition

Jason C.K. (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's focused on a specific Ukrainian drone, so perhaps we should merge it to Palianytsia (missile)? Whether or not the broader concept should have an article could be a future discussion for WT:MILHIST. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link supplied by UtoD shows that other "jet drones" already exist, and at least 2 are already referenced in Wikipedia (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238). But there's no generic coverage (yet?) of "jet drones" in the Loitering_munition page Jason C.K. (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Palianytsia, there is not really anything to merge is there. Once there's some actual knowledge about what makes rocket drone any different another weapon - if it's drone with a rocket motor or a cruise missile with a remote control - then we can see where the term should really go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link supplied by UtoD shows that other "jet drones" already exist, and at least 2 are already referenced in Wikipedia (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238). But there's no generic coverage (yet?) of "jet drones" in the Loitering_munition page. Of course, we don't know yet FOR SURE that Palianytsia is just another jet drone...but UtoD's linked article makes it seem all but certain Jason C.K. (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case redirect to UAV or cruise missile. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the most accurate re-direct would be to Loitering_munition. Jason C.K. (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be removed. Ukrainian new missile has nothing to do with rocket. Jaburza (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or rename to "jet drone", since non-Ukrainian ones already exist (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238), this one seems to be similar, and that's perhaps the best English translation of what the Ukrainians are saying Jason C.K. (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the phrase "jet drone" that us distinguishable from "jet-powered drone"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either phrase seems fine to me. Though what I think should happen is the most commonly-used new terms (missile drone and rocket drone) as well as the most accurate term (jet drone) should re-direct to Loitering_munition, and that page should include some text about how some drones are jet-powered Jason C.K. (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with loitering munition per Jason C.K., GraemeLeggett, and the duck test. Secondary sources do not adequately explain how this class of weapons is distinguishable from existing jet-powered loitering munitions, and circumstances suggest that Ukrainian claims about its unique capabilities may be propaganda. (As an aside, I wonder if using the word "rocket" to describe a jet-powered munition may be an example of inexact translation, i.e., perhaps the Ukrainian term meaning "rocket" can also mean "powered by something other than a propeller" in context.)

Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is absolutely no consensus here, not even agreement on a possible Merge target article. Maybe another week of discussion and consideration will help come to some agreement here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we settle on a primary Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Redirect for Loitering Munition as the best option for the moment. -UtoD 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very much not notable, from the "30 under 30 list" to the typical puffy articles from Nigerian media, this individual isn't suitable for wikipedia. I'm not finding any suitable sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]