wanweipedia

[Portal] WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

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:
  1. 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, 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

BitAIrt

BitAIrt (edit |  | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Promotional article, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability; cited to crypto blogs, self-sources and press releases. WP:BEFORE shows zero evidence of notability per WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. PROD removed by SPA, citation and notability problems not fixed. David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete article is a bit promotional and uses very little secondary sources, not much, only a little popped up on a Google Search Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) ???? 01:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. SerTanmay (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot find significance coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, not notable. Plus, it seems to be the consensus that it's not notable. So, there's no reason to drag the deletion process out. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Fight to Fame

Fight to Fame (edit |  | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

this doesn't appear to be a notable show based on the fact that every single article I can find about it is primary or a press release (or paid for opinion pieces from Entrepreneur/Forbes like publications.) Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Until it actually airs on a television network which doesn't require you to decode how to watch it in the first place, it has zero WP:N to be found (and the so-called 'mainstream studios' are pretty much investors in other studio projects, not actually producing anything). Nate (chatter) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

AnTuTu smartphone performance ranking

AnTuTu smartphone performance ranking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails guidelines. Störm (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (????) 13:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (????) 13:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete fails LISTN. buidhe 18:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Duplication of a single (commercial) website's contents, hooray. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a product review site. Ajf773 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

List of electric cars currently available

List of electric cars currently available (edit |  | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This list is very out of date and seems to duplicate a lot of content on other lists. I can’t see a reason for this separate list to exist. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, delete List of production battery electric vehicles (table) instead. List of production battery electric vehicles is more comprehensive but having details in a table is nice. Restructuring the page by status like List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles is preferable. However with the explosion of models in the next few years, particularly with wide variation in availability and stats from country to country, this can certainly be too unwieldy to be worth keeping in one page. Or are there other pages this duplicates that restructuring into would be better? Reywas92Talk 19:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • delete because Wikipedia is not freaking Consumer Reports. Or Road and Track or Motor Trend or anyone else that does car reviews. I'm against "current" articles anyway since they have to be babysat to keep them up-to-date, but the level of detail here is inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

DC-BUS

DC-BUS (edit |  | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Created almost entirely by an account with a conflict of interest. Also, not notable. drt1245 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: While nom's allegation of COI may be correct I see no evidence of presentation of issue at WP:AN/COI merely an unsigned Template:Un-coi notice on the user's talk page less that ten minutes before raising this AfD which gives them little time to respond. As this is the primary reason of raising the AfD nom. risks a claim for a WP:SKCRIT under criteria #2a, perhaps especially as no courtesy AfD notification was given on the talk page. That said the referencing on the article is a mess of linkrot with links not currently supporting the claims and other links usurped. There may have been a real protocol/technology supported by multiple manufacturers behind this at one point not so long ago but I have not researched sufficiently to call that or not. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak soft delete: I'm not impressed by aspects of the AfD nomination but I can't be bothered myself to try to recover/verify the references for the article and/or search for new ones. Should improved WP:RS emerge I'd swing to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Membrane method of gas concentration

Membrane method of gas concentration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Completely lacking in reliable sources for over 12 years. No sources in any searches. If a source can be found, there may be place for a paragraph in Nitrox, but this should never be a stand-alone article. RexxS (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Membrane gas separation. It is the same technology, probably just a niche terminology problem. (assuming there is anything of value to merge) otherwise just a redirect will do. Finding sources is mainly a matter of using the mainstream terminology, then Bingo, we have a real if rather technical encyclopedic article on Wikipedia already, complete with a fair number of solid looking references. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sounds a good alternative, Peter, although Membrane gas separation is a very different article from this one (probably because it has sources!). The  Membrane method of gas concentration article seems to have been used over many years simply as a coat-hook for a couple of manufacturers to hang their nitrox concentration products on. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    The current content of this article is a description of one type of membrane gas separation system specifically used for oxygen enrichment of breathing air. I am reasonably confident that it is a fairly accurate description given these limitations, and could be referenced by the link you removed as spam. Not the greatest reference, but not the worst by far. Manufacturers of industrial equipment usually describe the working of their products reasonably correctly, and it is not promotional in tone. Also, it is content that the existing Membrane gas separation article lacked, and I have been having a go at expanding it a bit to cover air separation applications. I have found a few potential sources, but it is largely unfamiliar technology, so I am not very efficient processing it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm quite confident that the current content is an accurate description of the process, but neither your nor my confidence is tantamount to a reliable source (sadly). My objection to the Nuvair source is that it is promotional. The opening sentence of the webpage begins "Nuvair's patented semipermeable membranes ...", and the second begins "Purchase a membrane system as a standalone product for integration into an existing air compressor system ...". That doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source for other parts of its content, but is not the kind of source I'd be prepared to base an entire article on. It's worth noting that the article's first source was Coltri Sub Asia Pacific, before it was switched to Nuvair without explanation. That shows how vulnerable a poorly sourced article becomes to anyone wanting to promote a particular company's offerings, and we shouldn't be leaving ourselves open to that. Putting the content into a well sourced, larger article, as you've already done, is the way to dilute the effect. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This page was last updated at 2021-02-28 21:30, update this pageView original page

All information on this site, including but not limited to text, pictures, etc., are reproduced on Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), following the . Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License


Top