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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology.

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[edit]

RuralShores[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL#REASON 4, no non-promotional content worth saving here. Filled with gems like founded in May 2008 with the objective of assimilating rural India into the Knowledge economy by providing job opportunities to the rural youth of the country. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A BPO with very promotional content... This is typical [1], stall writer, thinly disguised promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional page. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountasser Hachem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

So usual drill, CU-blocked UPE, some random awards and interviews and whatnot but no actual coverage outside the usual SPIP. Might have A7ed but I figured AfD would be easier given the "awards". Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Lebanon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- strongest possible, speedy delete Promotional garbage. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional profile refbombed with earlier promotional efforts. Mccapra (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangrove Institute of Science and Technology[edit]

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSschool. Most of the references are from the institute’s website. The other link https://theorg.com/org/mangrove-institute-of-science-and-technology is from an internet directory. Wikilover3509 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, Technology, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SEW[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, sourced only by press releases, and in a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was even more press releases. They've worked with some notable companies, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. No indication of notability for any of the awards they've won. Spammy tone can be fixed, but notability issue will remain, so I can't really be asked to clean this up. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly don't think the tone can be fixed here without effectively starting from scratch. Blow it up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find independent significant sources. Most are press releases. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Hkkingg (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moniepoint Inc.[edit]

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

The page is unlikely to meet WP:NCORP due to insufficient sourcing BoraVoro (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The article meets WP:Notability and should be kept. wɔːr (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sourcing meets WP:NCORP. Pls what's the nominators rationale again as this article is not a problem of WP:SIGCOV? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moniepoint Inc is notable--Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Taulia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet NCORP; not sufficient independent media coverage; routine Run-of-the-mill announcements. BoraVoro (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, as this is block evasion. jp×g 🗯️ 01:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the previous AFDs, this discussion can not be closed as "Soft Deletion".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greensill Capital#Insolvency where it is discussed. Alternatively there is List of mergers and acquisitions by SAP. – Teratix ₵ 13:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesaka Technologies[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill and other insufficient sources without proper in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails GNG, NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion, at any rate -- struck. jp×g 🗯️ 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on present citations and also have found these additional citations Insider Monkey, Seeking Alpha, itweb, and The Street. It should be noted that this is a publicly listed company on NASDAQ and there are more news articles in Google under its current name and old name "Net 1 UEPS." Hkkingg (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Seeking Alpha and TheStreet are, as I understand it, generally considered group blogs, not RS, and as far as I can tell Insider Monkey seems to be the same. Is there any specific reason not immediately obvious you believe those sources meet the criteria? (itweb seems to be a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement as well) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture[edit]

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [2] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung U740 Alias[edit]

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

Is this notable enough for a standalone article? Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Samsung, but I am not sure if this would be helpful, especially as this article is totally unreferenced. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've added some refs but I'd go for a selective merge with Samsung U750 Alias 2. Both are late 2000's phone, but they were popular at the time of their release, and we have mainstream coverage of both. — hako9 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matching person and technology model[edit]

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

Notability and quality issues. The article was created by a single-purpose account in 2009. None of the content is sourced, the "general" references are generally about "assistive technology" or are by MJ Scherer, the creator of this model. Google Scholar has about 3 results not associated with Scherer, which use this as background.

None of the current content should be merged to assistive technology, so I have not unilaterally redirected the article. However, if there is sourced content to include there, I am not opposed to that redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System[edit]

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

Obscure Bulletin board system, ~~which was/is based in the Bay Area from what I can tell~~. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Redirecting to Diversi-Dial would be a reasonable outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might not be based in the Bay Area, I might have gotten this confused with "Synerchat" which appears to be related to Synergy Teleconferencing System but might not be the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... turns out Synergy Teleconferencing System was definitely a global thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence of existence except [3], which appears to be self-published. We cannot reliably source anything, so we should probably delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[4][5]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [6], [7], [8]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem myX-2[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - depending on the outcome of this discussion, we may also want to nominate Sagem myX-7 for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is a product, not a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck -- sock. jp×g 🗯️ 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]