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

Trivitron Health Care

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

Draft was declined [1] multiple times but still moved into mainspace.

Unclear if there's enough for WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:NCORP from the sources in the article.4meter4 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in article are loud and clear that this fails WP:NORG. All primary sources, not a single secondary source in it. Mekomo (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails [WP:NORG]. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payaza

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Sources are either run of the mill or routine announcements that adds zero value to the subject's notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Technology, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases and announcements are not independent enough to meet the criteria for organisations. I’m unable to find independent sources to establish notability and would appreciate a ping if any is found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's no doubt the article was poorly sourced earlier, however After a WP:BEFORE, I revamped the article and removed all press releases and routine mention. The organisation meet WP:GNG. They are notable tech industry per WP:ORGCRIT. Tesleemah (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans the first two newspapers you tagged sponsors don't look like s press release like you tagged them to be. The first was covered by Guardian during one of the company's launch while the other was covered by another newspaper during another event. What about this I see you didn't analyse that in your table. Yes I know we don't just any article over here, but then we should accommodate one's that meet the notability guidelines. Tesleemah (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you didn’t recognise this as a sponsored post makes unsurprised that you’re not able to recognise routine coverages. Most news outlets in Nigeria does not explicitly mention that sources are paid for. If you don’t have any other thing to add here, I think we are talking past each other at this point. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans I will remove that source now, you are right. That's the only sponsored post out of other sources added. You have tried obviously,

P:S I didn't create that article so )) : Tesleemah (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the source, how many more sources do we have to prove the notability for this organisation? Remember we are looking for in-depth, significant (see WP:CORPDEPTH) independent sources? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah. Forget to ping. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, we have 4 solid sources to the article. I don't agree the rest are press release, one even featured the interaction with the Lagos state government, when the company is a private one. Tesleemah (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there I was thinking that you were finally understanding how sourcing works. This discussion is pointless. Happy editing. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You too! Tesleemah (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesleemah, Per the edit history, this is your supposed revamped version: here.

Let’s review the sources, shall we?

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://businessday.ng/companies/article/payaza-rebrands-to-improve-payment-solutions-empower-businesses-in-africa/	Press releases about the company’s rebranding	per WP:NGRS		✘ No
https://guardian.ng/business-services/payaza-revamps-system-enhances-financial-operations/	another press release-like publication	Reliable per WP:NGRS		✘ No
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/payaza-hackathon-targets-talent-development-payment-solutions-in-nigeria/	According to the company, the hhackathon-themed leveraging generative AI. . .	The source is a major newspaper	The article does not discuss the subject directly and in details rather the hackathon	✘ No
https://nairametrics.com/2024/10/26/the-payaza-fintech-hackathon-3-0-is-set-to-change-the-game-for-small-businesses-across-africa-now-calling-for-participants/	sponsored post published by https://nairametrics.com/author/nm-partners/		~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep The article highlights Payaza's role as a notable Nigerian fintech company with independent coverage in reputable sources like BusinessDay, The Guardian, and ThisDay. Its initiatives, such as AI-driven hackathons and partnerships with organizations like UNIDO, demonstrate significant contributions to the tech and business sectors in Africa, meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations.Albakry028 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have gone through all the sources, it seems the subject is notable for organising Hackathons. Most of the sources focused more on the Hackathon rather than the subject of the article. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously contradicting yourself, read what you wrote again. This time, carefully. If a subject is notable for organising hackathon, then what are we talking about? They are organizing hackathon but we should separate organizers from what they do? Is this particular hackathon open to other organisations or just them? And the fact you mentioned notability while voting make me wonder why the vote for deletion come up in the first place. Tesleemah (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did not get the logic, I don't know how and where to start the explanation. You might want to read my comments again to get it right. Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesleemah, routine business coverages about an event (that doesn’t meet the criteria for an event) does not help to establish notability. Please, familiarise yourself with the notability criteria’s on Wikipedia. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable tech industry per WP:ORGCRIT. Kamoranesi90 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable object (computing)

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

I'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge. Looking on Google Scholar, this seems to be a different concept than Portable Distributed Objects. The article could use some clarification for its uses, particularly for translation, but I see enough notability for it to stay. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a DICTDEF, and a excessively-specific (and obsolete) definition at that. The only source is a 2006 patent. gettext is the article about .po files, the .po redirect should be retargeted there. I don't think a DAB page for Remote direct memory access and a half-dozen similar terms is justified. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:09, 20 November 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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references appear to be about topics separate from the subject, as stated above. I was unable to find additional references. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. AI in medicine is the next big thing. But I can’t see how or why he’s notable. We need much more about him. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 23 November 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.

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 no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:PROMO. A search in google news did not yield anything significant. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, what about sources added to the article since its nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hungarian so hard for me to assess. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY. The sourcing has significantly improved, and the nominator and subsequent delete voters have not been able to provide a source analysis of the new sources. I say err on the side of caution and keep the article for now. If a Hungarian speaking editor comes in and offers a different opinion ping me.4meter4 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So have you provided a source analysis to support your keep vote? LibStar (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we can keep it, it has keepable content, but is surrounded by shell of unnecessary details, wp:promo and primary sources which needs attention. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed the shell as I saw it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:21, 18 November 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.