Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

RenderDoc

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

Article posses no sources that indicate importance. All six sources mention the tool by name, but only in a trivial manner (along the lines of "we used renderDoc to do [subject of article]". I cannot find any mention of the tool on google either, apart from various forms of documentation. As such, this article fails the general notability guidelines. Xevus11 (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The VGSE results are fairly reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge with Crytek or similar. (There might be a better merge target.) --Izno (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Lucky 11's

Lucky 11's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lucky 11's" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Product fails WP:GNG. No reviews on metacritic, or on custom google search. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Santa Fe Mysteries

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

Series consisting of two entries. Unnecessary "main" article without any additional information. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete - We generally only create series article when there has been at least 3 entries. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - General consensus is that a series article isn't appropriate unless there's at the very least 3 entries - otherwise, all information can just be put in one article or the other article generally. Seems to be the case here, as there's virtually no content here anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article was originally created to house the two games in the series before they had their own articles. Now that they've been expanded and split off, it's unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable internet trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Delete - per nominator. No reliable sources either AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as creator As JimmyBlackwing said, I originally created this article to house both games, and as other editors have since split my work into articles for the seperate games, this page seems redundant. Make sure all its content is salvaged in one of the two articles before it gets deleted though. :)--Coin945 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think this artocle isnt needed anymore. Per above discussionBabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Pet Society

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

Not clear what significance this has. It ended many years ago and there are still no reliable sources (WP:RS) on the page to show it's notable (WP:NOTABILITY) or significant. R9tgokunks 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could developer analytics be considered a reliable source in this context? Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Once notable, always notable. The fact that a game has been discontinued does not mean that it is not notable. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - As per RS forbes, quora, Review in GameZebo (See Metacritic), Kotaku and mashable. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    The Forbes link is self published. (Anything on the /sites/ directory is a glorified blog.) I'm not aware of Quora being reliable (self also). Kotaku isn't significant nor is Mashable. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    The Forbes piece is written by Forbes staff, not a contributor. - hahnchen 22:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    That still leaves it in the glorified blog state. No editorial control is exercised over those websites. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Internet trivia with no definitive sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC).
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The closest things to significant coverage here are IGN about people getting married and this brief review in Kotaku. I tend toward delete here. OTOH, it looks like the developer, PlayFish, might be notable? --Izno (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep For a few years, Facebook games were massive. This game was covered in multiple reliable sources mentioned above, also at The AtlanticGamasutraAdweek - hahnchen 22:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Aurora (video game)

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

I was going to PROD this but I was concerned that I may have missed some possible sources and given the lack of attention the page gets, it would have been unfairly deleted. However, all I have been able to find are [1] [2] [3]. As it stands, this is a non-notable video game unless anyone else is able to find additional reliable sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

keep the extensive PCWorld and RPS reviews establish notability. Poor article non-the-less, will put on watch list and maybe improve. Shaddim (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Given this is a paragraph long, that leaves us with an interview and an article. It'd be quite difficult to argue that a topic is notable using only two sources. Note the GiantBomb reference is a wiki. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well our notability criteria require only "multiple reliable sources with extensive handling of the topic". Two reliable good sources are multiple (+ lesser refs). Being called "the Dwarf fortress in space" is very strong positive statement, indicating notability. Additionally to this: this was not an one hit wonder but is after 14 years still under development with an active community. So, active and real world reception, clear keep.Shaddim (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - These sources don't exactly scream notability to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethan Clerc

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

Previous AfD was closed as "no consensus" after nobody took part except the nominator (Duffbeerforme) and the creator of the article (Ryan Vesey). However, the reasons given then for deletion still apply now. This is an article about someone who made three films when he was a student. (I have searched, and failed to find any record of his ever having had any part in any film-making since then.) There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the article or anywhere else that I have seen. References in the article are a dead link, a link to a YouTube video, YouTube stats, and a few brief news reports in local media of the "local boy makes a film" kind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hot coil challenge

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

A short spate of press coverage back in February only seems to feature a single person ever having attempted this, the cited Independent Journal Review source saying "It should be noted that while media outlets are calling this the new challenge, so far this is the only video that exists of this “challenge.” Lord Belbury (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: In that case, if possible, it might be worth briefly mentioning this 'challenge' and the media hysteria that followed it in articles more relevant to the greater discourse on harmful challenges that happened around the start of 2018.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any real media hysteria here, just several press outlets (some a few weeks after the others) reporting that one man had filmed himself foolishly burning his own arm, and expressing concern that this could become another "internet challenge". But five months on, it hasn't. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG. no evidence of lasting coverage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Tinyproxy

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

No evidence of notability can't find any suitable sources. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Deltek

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

Promotional-tone article with at least one COI and several SPAs contributing and pretty much nothing except non-exceptional business activities. Article has been PROD-deleted once before. The only claim of notability I see is "In March, 2004, Deltek introduced the first comprehensive software management tool to help government contractors better compete, win and retain government contracts.[1]" but ref is 404 and Wayback doesn't seem to have a copy (throws xml errors). DMacks (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajay Yadav (businessman)

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

non notable bio. WFE24 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

HorliX

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no coverage from reliable soruces. Article is promotional in nature. Newslinger (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to OsiriX, and maybe expand HorliX's entry under the "Derivatives of OsiriX" section. Not notable by itself. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Soak

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

Promotion for a non-notable product. Most of the references are advertorials. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Advertorial" has a very specific meaning: paid advertising masquerading as editorial copy. I do not think the term can be appropriately applied to these references. Most of the references appear to be a journalist saying "This looks cool" and writing independently about the topic. In particular, The Irish Times is a newspaper of record, and the writer for The Irish Times is a staff business reporter. https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/ciara-o-brien-7.1010748 So even if the manufacturer has mailed out dozens of samples to journalists around the world (and I do not think this is the case), reporters and editors have decided that the technology is newsworthy independently and without payment. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
That's true, but the journalists may have relied a little too heavily on press releases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Look it is covered by Yahoo [4], The Irish Times2, Engadget 3, PopSugar 4, Futura-Sciences 5, Tom's Hardware6, Digital Trends7, Government Technology8, The Siasat Daily9, Deccan Chronicle10, Core77 11, Mashable12.
  • Delete Pure commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Delete Commercial, with very minor sources. The Irish Times is just one source, and it's a short piece (111 words) appropriately headed "This supersonic gizmo will clean your stuff on the go". I'm sure that Ciara O'Brien is a fine journalist but this wasn't her finest hour. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The Sonic Soak is covered by Yahoo [5], The Irish Times2, Engadget 3, PopSugar 4, Futura-Sciences 5, Tom's Hardware6, Digital Trends7, Government Technology8, The Siasat Daily9, Deccan Chronicle10, Core77 11, Mashable12. There is deep coverage in the media. Gharee (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It is covered by Yahoo [6], The Irish Times2, Engadget 3, PopSugar 4, Futura-Sciences 5, Tom's Hardware6, Digital Trends7, Government Technology8, The Siasat Daily9, Deccan Chronicle10, Core77 11, Mashable12. There is deep coverage in the media. Gharee (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. The articles seem to me more focused on the fundraising campaign and claims made as part of the campaign than on the actual product or company. As of right now there is no product. Some of the sources link to the company’s promotional video rather than to their own reviews which might have a bit more editorial heft. No opinion on whether this is a viable widget, but at this point, there is no widget, just a fundraising campaign that has attracted some media to claims made by the company. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 14:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Heretic's fork

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

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the "Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • This may be the same instrument as the Spanish Inquisition's "pié de amigo", described in "A Short History of the Inquisition" and in a 2002 article in The Innes Review pages 9-10 (subscription reqd). AllyD (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Very uncomfortable keep, or perhaps a merge/redirect to a list. No weight should be given to Reston's 1994 usage as it is fictionalised history. This is evidence for 1983 -- also as "forcella dell'eretico"", which predates Golub's 1985 work, but there seems to be no evidence online for anything earlier. "La horquilla del hereje" is a 1990 work by Roberto Márquez (painter) -- no prior use of that term found. Given it's use as an inspiration and other coverage, there's enough for some kind of retention (perhaps with careful selection of tone and attribution). Are there any RS casting which cast doubt on its actual existence/use, and that can be quoted? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The material listed by other contributors to this debate needs to be compiled into the article. Even if the 1983 and 1985 items were the equivalent of a HOAX, this seems to have taken on a life of its own. The article needs to be amended to imply that the subject is at best of dubious historicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Presumably AllyD and H3O + OH- haven't found any better sources than the ones they gave (if they had, why would they omit them?), and I'm not finding any evidence of reliability-and-usefulness for any of those sources. "this is evidence for 1983" is [8], which is a catalogue of the holdings of a museum: without plenty of details, we can't assume that the authors refer to the concept discussed in this article. The Beard Book publication was already debunked as untrustworthy. The other book is published by Edizioni Savine. I've logged into ProQuest Oasis (documentation) and searched for the publisher, and I can't find a single Edizioni Savine book in their offerings (even a publisher search for savine found nothing relevant). Oasis lists millions of new and old titles in print and e, and this publisher's complete absence from their listings (even print, which the First-sale doctrine allows ProQuest to sell without publisher permission) makes me guess that ProQuest does not believe that ES titles will be of interest to academic libraries. I'd need a good deal of convincing before I believed that such a publisher could be considered reliable. EUP journals are reliable, but we need a reliable source that connects the heretic's fork and the pié de amigo before we use an EUP journal talking only about the latter. PS, I've just checked Edizioni Savine in YBP Gobi (documentation), which I generally prefer over Oasis because of its search interface and (often) more comprehensive results, and it too returned 0 results. PPS, the Golub artwork is not a reliable source for the actual existence of such a torture device; it could have been his imagination. The photo is legitimate, but the hosting museum doesn't exist anymore; museums can be operated by individuals or small groups (see the final paragraph of David Yeiser House, for example), so without evidence that this was a solid professional museum, I'm highly reluctant to trust it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of most popular websites

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

This list serves no purpose other than being hidden advertising for Alexa.

The problems with this List-article, noted in increasing order, are

  • The ranking methodology used by Alexa is, at best, questionable.
  • The input (data collected from websites), used as basis for producing the output (creating the the ranking list and details), is incomplete to an unknown extend.
  • The items found in the list are wildly incomparable from a technical vantage point: Items are individually defined based on incoherent random decisions about what an Item is.
    - Domains and websites are not same.
    - FQDNs and partial domains are not to be merged and split at random per item.
  • Any collection, or list, of websites is absolute useless from a utility perspective, when the only commonality is "popularity" (and that even if popularity was a hard metric).
    Seriously! If anyone disagree on that, then please create a "List of most popular physical objects".

-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone’s a little over-enthusiastic with a delsort tool.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • keep. Sourced and a perfectly good list topic. Yes, you could find the same information elsewhere but that is not a reason to delete - WP is an encyclopaedia and so should include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above users. Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. Any problems with methodology can invite us to use alternative listings, but otherwise report the listing(s) using the best methodology. (Same goes for what counts as a site). If output is incomplete, up to our editors to update it as best as published information allows us. MB190417 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments - Drilling into the attempted arguments.

  • [User:Vorbee] : "this article serves its purpose, ..."
    : The only purpose having been claimed this far, is its serving as advertisement for Alexa. (Which is actually reason for deletion, not keeping).
  • [User:Vorbee] : "..., and [it] will probably get re-created if deleted."
    : Keeping garbage, because garbage will return if removed, isn't a great reason for avoiding to remove the garbage. It's also false, because WPAdmins can pre-block its recreation.
  • [User:Vorbee] : concerning page-view comparisons.
    : Your sources for your numbers are unclear to me, so here's something I found.
    Anyway: Traffic alone isn't itself overly indicative of neither article quality nor reader satisfaction.
    Traffic origin and bounce rate for that page would really come in handy here, but I don't know where I can get them (they might not be public), so I have to settle for less.
    A qualified guess (based on WP's own previous statements on WP traffic in general) would be that the vast majority of traffic is sourced by Google.
    In also having an good idea about how search-kn00bs uses Google, then I, as an example for here, did the Google Search [most popular google websites].
    Result: Well, as far as search-intention goes (that's a big woo-woo to Google), then Google partly failed: The top ranked organic result, which I got from that search, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites (In second position came https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products ).
    Saying: I'm rather suspicious towards the empirical data (page-views) possibly being used for arguing that the page is worth keeping.(I hope it's now easy to see how a high traffic volume could be an affidavit of failure, not success. )
  • [User:JohnBlackburne] : "Sourced and a perfectly good list topic.", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does."
    : Allow me to improve that personal opinion objective argument by a little sprinkling, so to have it read: "Eminently sourced and a perfectly wonderful list topic", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this so obviously and most certainly does, beyond any doubt in the entire Universe."
    (I hope John got a sense of humour, and a lack of vanity.)
  • [User:MB190417] : "Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. ..."
    : Smith, I know you're very concerned about purpose (though unclear in this specific context), and that the architect (not editors) may have a job to do, but aside from that: Your transpilation into English wasn't a great fulfilling experience for me; me being just a common reader. I'm far less competent than Mr. Anderson (aka. Neo to some).
    (Anyone not familiar with the matrix will undoubtedly here suspect me of completely having lost my marbles.)

-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep A list of the most popular websites on the internet is quite encyclopedic. Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources. Dream Focus 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: "Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources." : That's either a false or a meaningless statement. -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. It also shows data from another website that measures the most popular websites, so it isn't just an Alexa advert. 344917661X (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful info for people who don't know alexa. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I Agree, not everyone knows about the Alexa ranking website, but pretty much everyone knows what wikipedia is, so people are more likely to find results here. 344917661X (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Observations, from Wikipedia Policy
States:
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.
Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).
7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.
This "List of most popular websites" violates both 1. and 7. of "Wikipedia is not a directory".
  • WP:OR : "Wikipedia:No original research"
Both Alexa and SimilarWeb (being the only sources for the list) have created their own methodology and techniques. While this undoubtedly has been unavoidable due to lack of any common standard for use, then this does not automatically mean that their methods and operations get to be regarded as acceptable or reliable. In fact, both Alexa and SimilarWeb are private enterprises, and treats their own invented methods and data as proprietary. Needless to say that: validation and verification of any original research (and products springing from such), is impossible without full disclosure (no COI-free peer-review can ever be performed without granting access to what needs reviewing).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You are wrong in your reading of WP:NOTDIR. They are not "loosely associated" – their popularity is a key feature of many of them – which is the most popular search engine, for example, or the most popular social networking site ? – and web site ranking is one of the few ways of measuring this as they are hard to compare otherwise, especially across the Great Firewall. It’s popularity is often mentioned when Wikipedia is reported on in particular. And that is the context. If e.g. Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website then the obvious question is which are the four more popular than it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, nice meme :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable topic for a list. It shows two companies' statistics. Alexa is there not just because it exists or because it's perfectly accurate but because it's the company often used by secondary sources when reporting on web traffic, and we defer to secondary sources' determinations of what's noteworthy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Codeforces

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

A previous PROD was reversed but notability still has not been established. The subject is not notable, failing WP:NORG and WP:NWEB as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – Ranked #1 by NDTV as shown here [9]. Coverage in the Daily Star – Irish Tech News – ForbesBloomberg and Techworm just to name a few, all third party – independent and reliable sources, as shown here [10]. In addition, also cited in scholarly papers, as shown here at Google Scholar [11]. I believe this meets our current standards for inclusion here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 14:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Shoessss: Actually it wasn't ranked #1 by NDTV, but by a person they interviewed. All of the things you've mentioned are only minor mentions of the subject in the sources; what we need is significant coverage to demonstrate notability. You linked to a Google Scholar search for papers, but I don't see any of them discussing Codeforces directly and significantly; please cite specific papers. wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – Friends, Codeforces seem to be ranked among first 10000 on Alexa. If the educational resource with such a popularity is "not notable" then probably something is wrong with notability criteria. Surely this suggestion is not strict or official, (Redacted), I don't want to interfere anymore, but if this page is deleted, it would be hard to restrain from feeling that Wikipedia becomes another bit more broken :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion Gork (talkcontribs) 06:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are a lot of mentions of Codeforces in a BEFORE check, but many are primary in some way, most are non-independent/reliable and all the others (including those listed above) do not satisfy Sig Cov on Codeforces itself. Frequently they are 2-line throwaways while discussing the general concept, in others they discuss the founder without any details on the site itself. In the books & journal articles I looked at again most were a couple of lines, in a couple of cases they would grab examples from the site but without actually giving any Sig Cov on the website itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)

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

Small article, with half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article. The other half is minor, niche considerations that haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years. -Pmffl (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete We have too many non-encyclopedic articles about technical details and this one is also redundant. wikitigresito (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been relisted per the latest deletion review (diff) pending further consensus. @RoySmith, Excelsiorsbanjo, Sandstein, Hobit, Reyk, SportingFlyer, Godsy, DGG, and Stifle:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC); updated 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Why have you only pinged those three people? If you want to notify the DRV participants you should notify all of them. Hut 8.5 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Draftify this article is very out of date and hasn't been properly updated in seven years (which is a long time in web development). This can be seen by comparing the article against Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), which has a duplicate of the first section which has been kept up to date. The two are very different because browsers have improved support for the various features since 2011 and one major browser isn't listed at all because it didn't exist back then. If the rest of the article is similarly out of date then it's misleading the readers. It should be moved to draft space until someone can check the whole thing for accuracy and update as necessary. Hut 8.5 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and move: if you want these types of comparisons deleted, nominate everything in Category:Browser engine comparisons. (Yes, I'm blatantly invoking WP:OSE here, because this is ridiculous.) This page should be renamed to drop the "web" part, given the rest of that category. Modernponderer (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix' There's no reason to dratify anarticle in order to add and update information, Draftification is needed when the article needs reorganization, or has fundamental problems, especially when there is doubt that it can ever be improved to be acceptable. Draftification has significant overhead, and is unnecessary for the sort of changes needed here . As for whether it would anyway be suited for eletion, see the argument just above. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: any tidbits of info still useful should be added to the web typography article in its File formats section. There's not much to move there, though, since these tables are sparse and dated. (Of the 4 engines listed, only 2 are still active. That's why I nominated this clunker of an article for deletion in the first place. I didn't think to just merge it into the other article back then, so that would be a better resolution.) -Pmffl (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • And that article that has linked to this one for the past 8+ years and still does isn't dated? Why're you voting for delete when you are saying a merge would be more appropriate? Merges do not require deletion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but encourage merging. "Small" is a very poor reason to delete, especially when there is an overlapping article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to the related articles. Tag the material as needing an update, as appropriate. The CSS section should go to Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), the rest to Web typography#File formats. This is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We should keep this article, as it contains information present nowhere else. Updating and/or merging doesn't require deletion, and should at any rate take place before deletion. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:LISTN because there's significant coverage of browser support for typography features as a group or set (as seen on Ars Technica and CNET). The content of this page doesn't fit into any of the other "Comparison of browser engines" pages, because typography is distinct from HTML, CSS, and graphics. This article should immediately be moved to Comparison of browser engines (typography support) to match the naming convention of the other comparison pages, and also added to Template:Browser engines. — Newslinger talk 12:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Koronis Pharmaceuticals

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

article consists entirely of primary sources ... online search finds no other reliable references Wolfson5 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep I was able to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:COMPANY. Added to article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I can only access a few of the added sources, but they seem reasonable. The Weak Keep is dependent on several sources that I can't access, but AGF (with trust on DB's reputation) does indicate that WP:NCORP is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! FWIW, I found most of these with Gale (publisher)/InfoTrac/ProQuest/GeneralOneFile. My city and county libraries let you log in with your library card number. You can also get access to a ton of paywalled databases at The Wikipedia Library. Even if you can't get your own login to a databse, or don't have time, you can also request someone who does have access help you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. If I had fully formatted all of the citations I'd have used {{Subscription required}} to note the General OneFile source but I was only trying to ID the existence of the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Alas there are two databases on wiki library that I'd like access to. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to be of a similar mind - unobliging souls! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Omniscien Technologies

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

No WP:INDEPENDENT references. A BEFORE search finds nothing other than the WP:ROUTINE. Chetsford (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - almost no coverage that is both reliable and intellectually independent. That includes a check on the former name as well. There was barely routine coverage in suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Pairaphrase

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

Article about a software product; the cited sources are written by the seller or look like barely revised PR releases, and a look in Google News suggests that little that's better is available. Hoary (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. No in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. The Xconomy reference in the article is one source, but I'm unable to find any others. Newslinger (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Gifyu.com

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

Non-notable image hosting site; all sources are in-house, promotional, user-contributed, or listings. Not brutally promotional as these articles go, but falls short of any notability requirement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. Search results reveal "for sale" listings which claimed that the site had an Alexa rank of 61,459 in 2016. Today, the site's Alexa rank is 119,608, which makes it even less notable than it was in 2016. Newslinger (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a note, its most notable point would be what warrants it inclusion. Obviously if it has never been notable, that would be irrelevant Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I was unable to find any coverage from reliable sources. Let me strike out the Alexa rank if it's not relevant. Newslinger (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Gifyu.com article should not be deleted for the following reason.
  • Has an Alexa rank of 119,608 [1]
  • A wide range of users including academics from top universities have used Gifyu [2]
  • Top companies like Glock Inc has used Gifyu.com links on their official Twitter page[3]
  • Leading food delvery service like HelloFresh has used Gifyu for their content hosting.[4]
  • Often used by users on Tech communities run on Microsoft.com.[5]
  • Listed on first page for search "GIF Upload" on Google.[6]
  • Over 6K backlinks from Twitter users.[7]

--gifyu (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alexa rank". Alexa.com. 
  2. ^ "University" (PDF). 
  3. ^ "Glock Twitter". 
  4. ^ "HelloFresh". 
  5. ^ "Microsoft". 
  6. ^ "Google". 
  7. ^ "Twitter". 
Thank you for this extraordinary demonstration of complete misunderstanding of notability requirements as presented by an editor with a whopping conflict of interest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Added WP:COI notices to Gifyu.com, Talk:Gifyu.com, and User talk:Tharun518. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tharun518: Sorry for mentioning the Alexa rank earlier, since that isn't the right way to determine whether a website is notable. Please refer to WP:WEBCRIT instead. Newslinger (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - the given sources are not independent reliable sources (see WP:RS), or provide only passing mentions and listings (reliable detailed coverage is needed). As already mentioned above, the requirements for "notability" in Wikipedia's sense of the term are not met (see WP:GNG for the basic criteria). A Google search did not reveal any other promising possible sources. GermanJoe (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The ROADEX NETWORK

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Newslinger. Per nominator this sub-topic has insufficient notability to stand on its own. But the title is perhaps a valid redirect for the primary topic. (Target article does, however, need a lot of work itself...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. The plan was to try to have a historic ROADEX Project page and a live ROADEX NETWORK page but with your comments I have contacted my colleagues in ROADEX and we feel that the easiest way forward for ROADEX would be to append the suggested ROADEX NETWORK text to the ROADEX project page. There is still some work to do on the ROADEX Project page with citations and references and I hope that I will be able to do this in the coming weeks. Best regards Ron Ronmun (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above, and please be mindful of WP:COI. Try to avoid promotional language and unsourced info. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

CrossBrowserTesting

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

Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources for the product itself (which should not be confused with the generic term "cross-browser testing"). Product is already mentioned on its company's article, SmartBear Software. Newslinger (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The concept itself is notable. It should be moved to cross-browser testing and additional sources added. https://www.stickyminds.com/article/how-test-your-website-multiple-browsers-four-solutions-compared is one. It's also listed as a topic in several testing books. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. We already have an article cross-browser. This spam for a new product provides no useful content for that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge with article on cross-browser. Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep / Comment
    The much bigger problem is that Wikipedia does not have articles supporting the realm of cross-browser topics.
     : Development and Testing are two immediate and easily spotted missed topics, both belonging to that realm.
    The existing Cross-browser article for that realm, which logically sit at the top of the perceived conceptual hierarchy, is crap - and worse: The Cross-browser article's history show no sign of it moving towards overall improvement.
    In short: This AfD is a bike-shed discussion, and I'm proposing to keep this bike-shed - it's not harmful, so why demolish it(?).
    (BTW: For those being both competent & interested, I just did a Google Search and found this, which unfortunately is a bit dated, but it is at least more elaborate than that).
    -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Deletion as a service The function of Wikipedia is not to advertise for non-notable products. Nothing here needs to be merged into the article we already have (in fact, such a merge would make that article worse). XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hemispherx Biopharma

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google News archive reveals only press releases. Sources cited in article lack depth. See WP:ORGDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oragen. Daask (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rintatolimod - All of the coverage of this company is either WP:ROUTINE, or relates to what appears to be its sole product, the drug Ampligen® (generic name Rintatolimod). The company's role with their drug is already sufficiently documented on that page, and I don't see any coverage that would suggest the company is notable outside of their role with the drug, so I would suggest an analogy to WP:ONEEVENT applies. It is likely anyone who searches for the company's name is interested, one way or another, in the information presented on the drug's page, so a redirect seems the best way to go. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.



    Analyst reports

    1. Mahajan, Snehal (2015-04-13). "13 April 2015: Diligence and Valuation Report: Hemisphere Biopharma, Inc". Arrowhead Business and Investment Decisions. Archived from the original on 2018-07-12. Retrieved 2018-07-12. 

      This is a 26-page analyst report about the company.

      The report says:

      Any opinions expressed in this report are statements of Arrowhead BID’s judgment to this date and are subject to change without notice.

      This report was prepared for general circulation and does not provide investment recommendations specific to individual investors. As such, any of the financial or other money-management instruments linked to the Company and Company valuation described in this report, hereafter referred to as “the securities”, may not be suitable for all investors.

      Investors must make their own investment decisions based upon their specific investment objectives and financial situation utilizing their own financial advisors as they deem necessary.

      The report has a business overview section with these subsections:
      1. Product Offerings
      2. Company Premiums
        1. Alferon N Injection®
        2. Ampligen®
        3. Alferon® LDO (Low Dose Oral)
      3. Company Risks
      4. Corporate Strategy
      5. Shareholding Pattern
      6. Listing and Contact Details
      Here is the company overview:

      Company Overview: Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hemispherx Biopharma Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Hemispherx” or “the Company”) is a specialty pharmaceutical company primarily engaged in the clinical development of new drug therapies based on natural immune system enhancing technologies for the treatment of viral and immune based chronic disorders. The Company has two flagship products, 1) Alferon N Injection® - approved for a category of STD infections; 2) Ampligen® - an experimental Ribonucleic Acid developed to treat viral diseases and disorders of the immune system, specifically Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The Company is also developing an oral formulation of Alferon N, Alferon® LDO (Low Dose Oral), for treating Influenza. The Company has formed collaborations with many research laboratories to examine if Ampligen® and/or Alferon® exhibits antiviral activity against the Ebola virus & testing Ampligen® in humans in conjunction with a nasal flu vaccine. The Company owns and exclusively operates a Good Manufacturing Practice manufacturing facility in New Jersey.

      The analyst report lists five categories of company risks and provides a paragraph of discussion for each: (1) Unsuccessful Product Development, (2) Uncertainty related to regulatory approval, (3) Cash Flow Uncertainty, (4) Inadequate financial resources/Delay in Commercialization, (5) Reduction in the Incidence of Ebola Cases.
    2. Bansal, Abhishek (2015-09-29). "29 September 2015: Diligence and Valuation Report: Hemisphere Biopharma, Inc" (PDF). Arrowhead Business and Investment Decisions. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-07-12. Retrieved 2018-07-12. 

      This is another analyst report from Arrowhead Business and Investment Decisions.

    3. This 3 October 2014 articlearchive.is from StreetInsider notes:

      Chardan Capital affirms its Buy rating and $3 price target on Hemispherx BioPharma (AMEX: HEB) following a recent company update and expanded Ebola collaborations.

      Analyst Ling Wang offered the following commentary:

      HEB expanded research on potential Ebola treatments to five Institutional collaborators. The five collaborators include National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID); a branch of the NIH; the United States Army Research Institute in Infectious Disease (USAMRIID); the Swiss Department of Defense (Spiez Lab); Howard University, Washington, DC; and a US-based facility with biosafety

      level 4 (BSL-4) capabilities with whom a Sponsor Research Agreement is currently being negotiated. Recall HEB has previously announced a collaboration with the USAMRIID for exploring Alferon against the deadly Ebola virus.

      [Several more paragraphs.]

    4. This articleWebCite from the company notes:

      Philadelphia, PA, Thursday, September 09, 2004: Griffin Securities announced today that it has initiated research coverage of Hemispherx Biopharma (AMEX: HEB - News) with a Buy Rating and a 12-month price target of $9.19. Chrystyna Bedrij, Director of Research, issued the report.

      This is an analyst report from Griffin Securities about Hemisphere Biopharma.
    5. This forum postWebCite from boursorama.com provides information from a Maxim Group analyst report written by analyst Yale Jen and published in April 2011.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hemisphere Biopharma to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • There is enough coverage about Hemispherx Biopharma's history, products (Alferon N Injection®, Ampligen®, and Alferon®), premiums, and risks to justify a separate article from Rintatolimod (Ampligen), one of its products.

    Cunard (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep As per Cunard's analyst reports, meets the criteria for establishing notabilty, passes WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OpenGL User Interface Library

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

Completing on behalf of an IP. Their rationale is “not notable and has no references.” Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep References available on Google Scholar. ISBN-13: 978-0387689920 also references. I've added some to article. As given IP does not seem to have notified contributors likely inadequate WP:BEFORE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to OpenGL. The GS citations are not remotely enough for notability. All they show is that WP:EXIST. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Redirect to OpenGL. Still not enough reliable sources to be notable. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not perfect as the result may have undue weight compared to the other libraries in the section which have their own article, which either result in undue weight in an already longish target article which has its own issues which are possibly more important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Branch Metrics

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Lidarosehasbrouck with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

TechNet (lobbying organization)

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

I'm not seeing enough out there to qualify this for WP:NCORP. I'm seeing a lot of single mentions on other company pages saying things along the lines of "TechNet was involved in this company's lobbying efforts" but beyond that not really a whole lot. Majora (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Just a corporate PR release. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Weak keep but this'll need some serious work. I took a look at HighBeam Research while doing my WP:BEFORE for this article, and found quite a bit about TechNet, specifying about the political organization. It looked to be more than just "they got this or that" as I went through the sources, and in my opinion there appears to be enough there to establish notability. That being said, this article may need some WP:TNT in order to get it right, so I have no prejudice against deletion and recreation at a later time by someone interested in writing about the subject properly. Red Phoenix talk 05:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Winc

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Standard trade papers reporting change of name. scope_creep (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - This used to be Staples Inc in Australia and New Zealand; article is needed to make this reference and definitely passes WP:GNG. Pesa881 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment A simple small paragraph in Staples could provide the details. All the reference in this are Churnalism, except one, which is the Sydney Morning News, and that is a name drop. scope_creep (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't know about New Zealand, but Staples was big in Australia. Winc took over Staple's shops there, which makes it worth the article. Pesa881 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per Pesa881.Redirect to Staples, but do not delete first, because editors in the future may prove notability and recreate the article, that way the page history will be preserved. -Henry TALK 04:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
User:HenryMP02 Pesa881 is SPA account and the creator of the article. The standard policy for this type of article is a redirect. scope_creep (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I will update accordingly. -- Henry TALK 18:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The former Staples stores in Australia and New Zealand will now have different designs, merchandise and strategies than the Staples stores in the United States and Canada. Mixing the two together in a single article is a recipe for confusion. Moreover, Winc New Zealand has apparently been sold, or is about to be sold. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1807/S00112/commission-approves-purchaser-for-winc.htm https://www.reseller.co.nz/article/643358/rich-lister-swoops-winc-nz/ An infobox that combined financial figures, store count and employee count for Winc and Staples would be meaningless. Winc is already notable in its own right, and the ownership change is fundamental to that notability. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online authorisation

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=851204047"
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