Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive.
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

Huaptec

Huaptec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Huaptec" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, a search indicated only routine coverage. The creator is a likely COI/UPE editor. Wording like "mobile signal enhancement solutions" and "offers a variety of solutions" are texbook advert language. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Integrated biotectural system

Integrated biotectural system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Integrated biotectural system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

1. WP:NOT advert Reads like a press release for an indiscernible product that didn't happen. 2. WP:N Failed to WP:V with so many dead links that make me question if there's any RS for this, and PROD and number of editors questioning both of these on the talk means it should be AfDed Widefox; talk 23:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Induction motors modelling in ABC frame of reference

Induction motors modelling in ABC frame of reference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Induction motors modelling in ABC frame of reference" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested PROD. Looks like partial course notes for a lecture, but is a meaningless typesetting exercise, not an explanation of its putative topic. Original contributor hasn't been seen since creating this in 2013. Wikipedia is not a textbook and it's not clear the treatment of the subjects started here could ever be completed as a reasonable encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Biotech industry in Boston

Biotech industry in Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Biotech industry in Boston" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article is a collection of internal links. WP:NOTLINK Jamez42 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. First, if an article subject has potential to include more information, it doesn't need to be deleted. It can be improved. That's why we don't delete every stub article. Second, WP:PURPLIST, says "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Natureium (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above, would appear to have the potential to be a good article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article could be renamed as a list if it meets the notability criteria. While the last editions were a significant contribution for the content, per WP:OSE I wish to give Biotechnology industry in China and Biotechnology in India as examples, as they include more comprehensive information regarding the industry as a whole. One of my concerns is also that an article only about Boston is too obscure, so I also encourage simply creating "Biotechnology industry in the United States".--Jamez42 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Important tech topic that meet WP:GNG by decent coverage in reliable sources Business Insider, The Economist. And the article has even more, including sources from Nature which all discuss the topic directly. I agree it needs to be renamed to use formal term " Biotechnology" instead of informal "Biotech" but that's not issue of AfD, it would be done later. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB

Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article about small, unnotable, possibly defunct (company page being domain camped) company with no coverage in roughly 10 years. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's hard to find good sources here, the company is by now definitely defunct, and I don't see the coverage brings us close to a GNG pass. The article was created and maintained by an individual with a stake in the project. Sam Sailor 10:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Bragi (company)

Bragi (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bragi (company)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Quite a bit of coverage of the product in the form of product reviews and coverage of capabilities - however that would possibly advance the cause of the Bragi Dash, not the company. WP:TNT also due to promotional quality and over focus on product features. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be okay with deleting this article as an advertisement but there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of the company and its products. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I would argue that most of the coverage is on the product and not on the company.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This article on the company is where the product is covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of recordings with a flanging effect

Timeline of recordings with a flanging effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Timeline of recordings with a flanging effect" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Some illustrative examples and a short timeline can be at flanging but creating an exhaustive timeline of a sound effect is trivial and virtually impossible. Note that some of the entries are even accidental flangings put to record: there is virtually no discrimination for this. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is in "list of ...." format which is discouraged on Wikipedia. However, there is good sourcing in the article, so I'm not going to recommend deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep well written, good examples. --RAN (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: this article should really be retitled List of recordings with a flanging effect as "timeline" implies the development or change over time. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • REname as just suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, or if there's anything worth merging, merge to Flanging. The earliest examples are of course noteworthy, the rest are a fairly random and indiscriminate selection from literally thousands of recordings that have used the effect. --Michig (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Synthea

Synthea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Synthea" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Obvious commissioned work for non-notable software that was an inappropriate AfC acceptance. It is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM on it's face, but also fails the sourcing requirements found in WP:N. The sourcing is either primary, WP:SPIP, or press release churn and interviews. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I won't argue with this. It was a bad acceptance, I apologize. I'll be more careful in the future. – by AdA&D at 16:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Response from Initial Author

Apologies if my formatting is off. I am the initial author of the page and I wish to address the cited concerns WP:NOTSPAM and WP:SPIP.

Was this commissioned?

First as to whether the page was commissioned or whether the authors have a conflict of interest. I am user of the software. While participating on the issues board of the software project, I was contacted by User:Exception e who has been contributing to the page Talk:List_of_open-source_health_software. A letter was posted to the issue discussion board (text of the letter appears on the Talk page linked) asking for a wikipedia page to be created so that it could be included on the List_of_open-source_health_software. The maintainer of the Synthea project replied stating that he felt he could not initiate the page because of conflict of interest policies. As a user of the platform, I volunteered to write the page.

As stated, I have used the project in the course of my work as a data scientist in healthcare. I was first introduced to it when it was presented at a MIT conference in 2016. Shortly after that conference, I had lunch with the maintainers to provide feedback on some issues. I am not a contributor of source code nor do I have a financial interest in the success or failure of the project but I am user. I have reviewed the WP:EXTERNALREL policy and I do not think that would exclude me as contributing to the page but I will trust the editors judgement on the issue. In writing the article, I did contact a maintainer to request that an image used in the documentation be placed in the wikimedia commons such that is could be included on the page without a copyright issue.

Is the sourcing Press Release Churn or Interview?

The article does use a quotation from a article describing the project. However, the sourcing came from a peer-reviewed journal, Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Informatics_Association. While that source is fact-checked and reviewed, It was authored by the project maintainers and thus should be considered a primary source. Other sources included HIT Analytics.com, which is a secondary source. The project was covered by a named reporter and included outside perspective. The publication includes a clear masthead and is a known online newsletter.

The project and issue of synthetic health data has also gotten attention from other secondary sources, that are independent of the project, including:

HIStalk A daily news site that does not accept paid content well known in the HealthIT space. Huffington post Where the author summarized the industry challenges and stated the case for having synthetic health data. a 2017 paper accepted at the digital health innovation conference had heavy reliance on Synthea and was not authored by any of the project maintainers. I consider this article to be secondary as to its use of Synthea but primary in terms of the research presented.

There is also a book on the subject anonymizing health data that presents the issues plainly but was published before the Synthea software, noted here, was created.

I am happy to edit the article to make better use of these other sources

Is this software Notable?

This is the area I struggled with and I admit that I did not review WP:N prior to authoring the page.

I would argue it is notable for the following reasons:

  • it is authored by a company that clearly is notable Mitre Corporation.
  • the software is tied to a notable issue in the health technology space. Specifically Data anonymization and Health Informatics.
  • There are other software methods for synthetic health data already in wikipedia. Specifically, Datafly algorithm
  • Sources discussing this project are reliable and independent as stated above.

Alternatives to Deletion

I'd also like to propose three alternatives to deletion for discussion.

1. This article could be moved to the drafts space while we work to change the tone and update the sources used.

2. This article could be eliminated but some of the content moved to the Talk:List_of_open-source_health_software noted above.

3. This article could be merged with another article in the health informatics and software space.

Kindofluke (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC) comment added by Kindofluke (talkcontribs) 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete - don't believe WP:NOTSPAM applies here, but there are few secondary sources available to prove notability. I suspect this could well become notable within the next couple of years but there aren't currently any published papers using the software in research. It may be worth moving the article to the creator's user space to be revived if it becomes notable. I suspect it would stay in the Draft namespace for longer than is appropriate if we moved it there. PriceDL (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative to Deletion / My 2 Cents - Hi everyone. I helped author the article as a person heavily involved in open source healthcare. I am not involved in Synthea but I am actually considering using it in an open source project that I help to run. I appreciate the discussion here so far, agree with Luke's points, and only wish to contribute these 2 cents:

I don't believe this article is spam or an ad. I agree that the article would benefit from being placed in a draft form where Luke and I can add more references for notability, which is good and practical feedback.

Thanks, Matthew Exception e (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Regional Broadband Consortium

Regional Broadband Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Regional Broadband Consortium" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. A7 declined without comment Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Regional Broadband Consortia appears to be private organisations operated by the local and regional government. As a national project, this article (and the related consortia) may meet WP:N. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 10:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Optakeover: So they're notable just because they exist, right? Are you Kmweber in disguise? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Bravo Telecom

Bravo Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bravo Telecom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I'm not seeing how this passes our notability guideline.Has shades of UPE throughout it's history and even hijacking.Not finding any significant coverage across reliable sources. Winged BladesGodric 12:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I stumbled upon this article by chance (saw an ad for this local ISP) and noticed that the title "Bravo Telecom" had been highjacked from being about a Saudi telecom (later histsplit into Bravo (Saudi Arabia)) by UPE-corp account User:BT.team and also by Meding46 (see the WP:COIN thread detailing the highjack.) I PRODed and tagged the then-unreferenced advert-like stub, to which Meding46 said "I know the company very well as they're my provider for Internet Telephone and TV since 10 years, so I'll reach to them and make them aware that their page is planned for deletion. I'm sure we can improve this page by citing sources let me manage that.", and then came along Sumon07 (who are suspected of engaging in UPE across several articles, along with their sock User:Rasel78, and who also probably logged out to use 203.78.145.244 to re-remove the tags here) to add sources to this article. Of the seven added sources, two (#1 and #5) are to Bravo's website and one (#6) is a self-published pless release, two (#2 and #4) are directory listings of businesses or internet plans, one (#3) is to a government decision unrelated to Bravo, one (#7) is a generic tech article about DSL Internet that doesn't even come within a mile of mentioning Bravo; there is not a single reliable, independent source demonstrating any significant coverage, and thus there is no argument that this topic would pass notability per WP:GNG or even WP:NCORP. Ben · Salvidrim!  15:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete -- a telecom company of 30 employees is too insignificant. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mege -- Almost all listed companies in the website listing Bravo Telecom (#4) among others have a Wikipedia Page : see reference page Plans by carrier, I could find at least the four preceding Bravo Telecom such as Bell Cogeco Distributel and EBOX. Because I leave in Canada, I know that both latest ones are adopting same business model than BT and are comparable in terms of employees and turn over. Additionally, when Canadian users search for Bravo Telecom they are faced to the page about Bravo (Saudi Arabia) which does no more exist and it doesn't make sense to keep them in the index. I would recommend merging both pages Bravo Telecom and Bravo (Saudi Arabia) into the same page about the Canadian internet provider which is more useful for users in Canada and in the world. Meding46 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Or more useful to your pocket.Anyways, WP:OSE and WP:USEFUL aren't valid arguments.And, I live far away from Canada, so why do I choose to believe you or any other non-reliable source?If, you believe that Bravo (Saudi Arabia) which does no more exist and it doesn't make sense to keep them in the index, feel free to seek an AFD.Winged BladesGodric 16:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep From what I understand there are people specialized in deletion and this may be a new business. I live in CANADA (see my IP) and I believe the brand Bravo Telecom deserves its own Wikipedia page, I do not understand why is there a debate about this !74.58.71.52 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) "I think it deserves a page" unfortunately is totally meaningless. The point of this discussion is not to evaluate what you think, but evaluate whether this article subject meets English Wikipedia's inclusion policy. Can you explain how the article subject meets English Wikipedia inclusion policies (WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH)? Thanks! Ben · Salvidrim!  00:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Efinancialcareers.com

Efinancialcareers.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Efinancialcareers.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Nothing in WP:RS per my search. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Dice.com or whatever is more appropriate. This does not warrant a separate article. cnzx (talkcontribs) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 07:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 07:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim!  07:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=821018410"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA