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

AirPower

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

This doesn't seem to be in any way notable, it's just another charging accessory for Apple products... Appears that it works in the same way as any other wireless charging pad that is already on the market. Seems to fall into the "its an Apple product therefore needs an article" pile... Basically just fails basic notability guidelines IMO. News coverage is nothing more than basic new device coverage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge to Apple Inc. per nom. Wumbolo (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It’s not like the usual charging mat you find at your local store. This one's quite different than the rest in my opinion, deserves an article. These type of articles need to be deleted, this AirPower one is notable. Darius robin (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Do you mind providing some reliable sources? Wumbolo (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Qi (standard) which already mentions AirPower. It is WP:TOOSOON for this proposed variation of the charging standard which "won't arrive until sometime in 2018." Ensure there's also a mention in the Apple Inc products section. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Apple Neural Engine

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

No need to keep an article which contains only two sentences Darius robin (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator fails to advance a valid reason for deletion, per WP:TOOLITTLE. We do not delete stub articles based on length or word count but rather notability, and the first three refs are reliable sources. Enough to meet WP:GNG, imo. Now maybe there's a commonsense merge target....? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge I disagree with the nominators reasoning for deletion but in my opinion the Neural Engine itself isn't notable, the A11 chip is and therefore these two sentences should just be merged into the A11 article... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep At the time of the nomination this article does indeed appear to have been a stub... but that isn't a reason for deletion. It looks like some content has been added to the article after its listing here, maybe as a good faith effort to to stave off deletion, but the latest additions may need some editing as it reads a little like fluff. While the content could be merged into Apple A11, I'm in favor of the article remaining a stand-alone article as I anticipate it will evolve along the lines of Apple motion coprocessors. —RP88 (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 13:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge the information itself is useful but not freestanding, merge into the A11 and AI accelerator articles as appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Pocomail

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to construct an article. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: created in 1999, still listed as a best email client in 2017. [1] Toddst1 (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is some coverage in published magazines:
  • Canter, Sheryl (September 19, 2000). "The PC Magazine Shareware Awards, E-mail, News readers, Chat, Poco, Version 2.02". PC Magazine. Vol. 19 no. 16. Ziff Davis. pp. 102, 104. ISSN 0888-8507.  2/3 page article
  • Brenesal, Barry (November 2004). "Poco Systems PocoMail 3.1". PC Today. Vol. 2 no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 98. ISSN 1040-6484.  Full page review
Online sources seem to be scarce, I found several mentions and one short pcmag.com review: [2] There was also an article on pcworld.com, but isn´t available anymore (no archived version found). Pavlor (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While these are not official policies they provide good points: WP:OLDAGE, WP:MASK, WP:COATRACK. This article might be somewhat old, but it is not notable. This article also attempts to mask the part of it not being notable by containing very trivial facts in some areas. It also attempts to use context from what it might provide as an email client to make it seem more notable. Many items have received passing mentions in various books, magazines, but this does not provide notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Another two RS:
  • Glitman, Russell (February 17, 2004). "E-mail clients, PocoMail 3.03". PC Magazine. Vol. 23 no. 3. Ziff Davis. p. 71. ISSN 0888-8507.  Half page review in article about E-mail clients
  • Steyer Phelps, Anne (November 2007). "Email Clients, PocoMail 4.5". SmartComputing. Vol. 18 no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 22. ISSN 1093-4170.  Half page review in article about E-mail clients Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment More reliable sources are needed to fulfill notability.Tart (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Uruk GNU/Linux

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

It does not have notability and reliable sources. Editor-1 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found three independent reliable sources giving it significant coverage, which is enough to establish notability: [3] [4] [5]--greenrd (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • None of them are not reliable sources. They are blog-like websites. Editor-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Not true. Softpedia is not a blog. You can't just judge a website by how it looks, you have to actually do some minimal research! In any case, even websites which are solely blogs, like the other two, are not precluded from being Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They simply have to be subject to editorial oversight and without evidence of being unreliable, which appears to be the case for the other two. Neither of them are personal blogs.--greenrd (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:NEWSBLOG, blogs are not automatically non-RS. In this case, the three sources listed are ones that have full-time staff, are not personal or group blogs, and have editorial policies. That suggests this (barely) meets WP:GNG. It probably should be added to List of Linux distributions, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=806678910"
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