Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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 as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

edit

Doddle

edit
Doddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software that doesn't appear to have WP:CONTINUED coverage. The sources date back to the beginning of the project, and the official website itself seems outdated since 2013. Svartner (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any in-depth sources and most of the existing sources seem to be user-generated blogs on trade websites. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightpick

edit
Brightpick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure I really see the CCS here, but here are the sources, which are mostly not so much TRADES as plainly advertisments:

[1] WP:TECHCRUNCH product announcement,
[2] announcement, publisher Peerless Media openly states their publications are for generating high-quality leads and driving motivated buyers to your website.
[3] is WTWH, same.
[4] tech.eu funding announcement.
[5] same on funding announcement, dunno if the site marks advertorials,
[6] is Peerless Media again,
[7] DC Velocity is less obvious about it but they're Omeda
[8], as mentioned, Peerless Media
[9], product announcement, fails ORGIND, I'm dubious about Monsoon Media but they don't outright say their content is advertising, I guess.
[10] doesn't actually exist
[11] non-notable award

Most of the sources are ads. We can't host a marketing brochure based on ads even if they're not as blatant about it as they might be. Other available sources are also ads or industry advocacy, but regardless of whether acceptable sources exist, this article would have to be fundamentally rewritten to be based on those sources instead of these ones. Pinging Sagotreespirit who marked the article as reviewed on 29 Oct and ChildrenWillListen who requested G15 22 Sep, for comments given that context. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FTZ 1 TR 6

edit
FTZ 1 TR 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Weak keep Based on german article and the sources added by Liandrei it seems like this is a notable protocol. Given it's a topic of fairly niche interest, I am wondering if a merge and redirect to ISDN would be more appropriate rather than keep. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explurger

edit
Explurger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much time having been wasted over this whole affair, I won't bore you by repeating the details. Sources are press release after press release of the most SERIESA/WP:CORPROUTINE content you'll find.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a WP: BEFORE and could only find routine coverage. You know it's bad when the top Keep !vote claims that they found quality sources that will save the article, and they all fall into WP: CORPROUTINE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INMerge Innovation Summit

edit
INMerge Innovation Summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously salted as InMerge Innovation Summit * Pppery * it has begun... 17:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tenna (company)

edit
Tenna (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, they do look like normal trade publications at first glance, but honestly I still feel like it's a little embarrassing how long it took me to realise this for the ones that are not marked. Most of the sources in the article are from marketing companies, and not actually even trade publications and are thus obviously not RS or ORGIND.

As of the current revision, 1, is Informa TechTarget and just a short quote from a customer besides, 2 is marked of course, but 3 and 6 from IRONPROS is published by IRONMARKETS, see About page, 4, 5 are about the Inc.com list (WP:SERIESA really applies for a megalist of 5000), 7 (RFID Journal) is Emerald X, 8 is a "here's what they said to us when we met them at an event", 9 is WTWH, 10, Catalyst Communications Network, 11, Baum Publications, 12 is a new partnership (Autodesk) but at least not an ad, 13, Inc.com list again, 14 and 15, also lists with no depth, 16 is dead but appears to be some self published site by a "Claire Cabe" according to the about us link, 17 (Silicon Review) also appears to be a vanity publisher, but feel free to kick it to RSN. 18 is Fusable, 19, Asphalt Contractor is also IRONMARKETS/AC Business Media, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 are all lists that do not go beyond mere mentions.

All in all, this is refbombed to hell, but all of the sources are ads, and the article is thus also an ad. Would need to be rewritten entirely from scratch to be suitable for inclusion, thus here we are. Unfortunately, not blatant enough for G11, so enjoy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree with some of the nominator's assessment that not all sources contribute towards notability, I do not agree with many of the things that he said. There are multiple sources that have in-depth info of the company and not advertising or primary. Here is my assessment:
    1- The Silicon Review - I think it's one of their best coverage, so putting it first. Mentions company name 19 times and has in depth review of them.
    2- Equipment World - Fully about them, about 20 paragraphs long, in case you get a Paywall and cannot see.
    3- Iron Pros - Complete article about the subject and a software review. Mentions Tenna 41 times
    4- RFID Journal - significant coverage if the company, Company name is mentioned 13 times.
    5- Engineering.com - another article with 13 mentions of the company
    6- Heavy Equipment Guide - Review of one of their products. 17 mentions of the company name
    7- Asphalt Contractor - Magazine article had 14 mentions of them.
    8- Inc 5000 - This is their Inc5000 listing with company stats, not so much in depth, but it should still count as a point towards notability, because it's a major award that shows a company is notable.
    Thanks. Pemmnali (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to look at all of them due to limited time but looking at RFID journal, I see "Conti says" four times and it smells 50% churnalism. The number of times the name appears is not how WP:SIGCOV is evaluated, but extensive quotations preceded by "PR mouth piece said..." lowers the WP:ORGIND score. Graywalls (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A few quotations would not make it an interview. Almost all major news articles have quotations. Pemmnali (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Graywalls, I think for this specific case it was much easier to look at the about pages than analysing the text. For example, as I've noted above, RFID Journal (which was ref 7 at time of nomination) is published by Emerald X, which is...

    A leader in building dynamic market platforms that integrate live events and media into uniquely rich experiences, we’re in business to build your business. Each year, Emerald connects over 1.9 million customers across 142 events and 16 media properties.

    In other words, a marketing company. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that WP:SERIESA States:
    "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines"
    Hence this cannot be cited as an official policy for deleting a page Pemmnali (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pemmnali, I have explained the ownership of each source. They are plainly advertising companies. This is not acceptable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the concern about ownership structures, but I'd like to point out a few considerations that might be worth discussing:
    The Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corporation, is widely recognized as a reliable source despite News Corp's involvement in advertising and media ventures. This precedent suggests that advertising-related ownership doesn't inherently compromise editorial credibility. In fact, most major publications derive significant revenue from advertising—this is a standard business model rather than an indicator of unreliability.
    I'm genuinely interested in understanding the basis for this objection. Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that states advertising company ownership makes a source unacceptable? I've researched this question myself and searched Wikipedia policies and asked multiple AI sources without finding such a policy. If one exists, I'd very much like to see it, as I want to ensure we're applying established guidelines and not something you came up on your own.
    You need to be careful not to infer policies that haven't been explicitly documented, as that could set a problematic precedent. Pemmnali (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pemmnali, if you are not able to distinguish a company whose primary purpose is to publish news and runs advertising to generate revenue to support that, and a company that proudly announces they will use their media properties to build your business, I think you may need to look for another line of work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Alpha. This is on WP:RSN NOW Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the RSN listing is here. Only 2 other comments so far but fairly clear consensus among those comments is that Silicon Review is indeed an GUNREL vanity press/covert advertiser. Wonder if it'll be worth it to report them to the FTC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even tough I used AI to write the below reply which ironically probably got filtered by the AI, it was only to make my grammar better. The argument was generated by myself not by the AI. Please read it. The summary of it is that I read the RSN and there is no solid evidence that that publication is selling paid placements. They could be doing free interviews with the subjects. Many publications provide free featured posts on companies and people that are notable. Pemmnali (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the Alpha3031's analysis of the sources. In 2021, Tenna's revenue was $3.4M[12]. It is currently estimated to be between $5M-25M[13]. The company itself states they increased it more than ten times in recent years[14]. Both the timescales and values are too small to expect significant coverage to exist. The article says that one of their main products is related to GPS, but a search at gpsworld.com brings up no mentions of the company. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunseeker Robotics

edit
Sunseeker Robotics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only reliable, secondary coverage I could find of them is the cited Register review of one of their products. The rest of the coverage of them online is press releases. Previously tagged for proposed deletion; this was contested without comment by article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikishovel, all the content is sourced from non-press-release websites, and they are all well-known sites (CNET, The Register, The Gadgeteer). None of the content involves participation from the brands, and it is all neutral information. Please review it again. Thank you. Leefranklawyer (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Oswald, Ed (2024-09-10). "Sunseeker Orion X7 review: A great robot lawn mower with a subpar app". PC World. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The review notes: "The Orion X7 is new, so there were bound to be some problems; every robot mower I’ve tested to date has had one quirk or another. It’s not impossible to set up, you just need to have some patience. And with any luck, it’s a process you might need to do just once. Problems of this nature are magnified at a mower at this price, because buying a higher-end robot mower brings higher expectations when it comes to babysitting the tool—and this toddler requires quality hands-on time at the outset. Every other element of the Sunseeker Orion X7—from its innovative floating cutting plates to its impressive AI and vision capabilities, which make it great for people who want to mow at night—is the best I’ve seen."

    2. Hart, Spencer (2025-05-25). "I've been reviewing a GPS robot mower for a month – now I'll never mow my lawn manually again. After a month with the Sunseeker X5, my lawn looks like a golf course – and I haven't lifted a finger". Stuff.tv. Archived from the original on 2025-06-19. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The review notes: "For the past month, I’ve handed the job over to a robot – the Sunseeker Elite X5, to be precise – and it’s been quietly transforming my garden into something that looks professionally maintained. ... I’ve tested robot mowers before, including a Flymo that looked like a giant plastic pumpkin. The Sunseeker X5 is the opposite. It’s all clean lines, low profile, finished in black and grey – smart without being shouty. ... Of course, it’s not perfect. The biggest thing is that it doesn’t quite get to the very edges of the lawn, so you’ll still need a quick once-over with a strimmer every week or so. One morning, I got a notification saying the mower was stuck – it had dipped a wheel into a flowerbed and couldn’t find its way out. The issue wasn’t so much that it got stuck (we all have off days), but that it kept trying to free itself, spinning its wheels and gouging out a decent chunk of lawn in the process."

    3. Speed, Richard (2025-11-01). "Robotic lawnmower uses AI to dodge cats, toys: The Sunseeker Elite X5 can mow on its own, but it doesn't come cheap". The Register. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The review notes: "The tentacles of AI seem to be reaching everywhere, even to the humble lawnmower. We tested the Sunseeker Elite X5, a robotic mower that uses machine learning to steer around your lawn, to see what happens when artificial intelligence meets whirling blades of doom. ... In use, the X5 is quiet, effective, and efficient. While we couldn't help but hum the theme to Robocop while it did its thing, the resulting finish and stripes were impressive, although the need to set the cutting height manually is an annoyance, as is the requirement for two power sockets. The device is well-adapted for the UK climate and will return to its charger if it detects rain."

    4. Prospero, Mike (2025-09-05). "The Sunseeker X3 Plus robot lawnmower has been trimming my yard all summer - 3 things I like and 1 I don't". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The review notes: "The Sunseeker X3 Plus is a nice little robot lawnmower for those who have yards that aren’t too big or too steep. It’s easy to set up — I would never recommend buying a robot lawnmower that requires a boundary wire — and it did a good job at keeping my grass trimmed throughout the summer. Still, it’s not foolproof, as it got caught on what I thought were pretty low-profile obstacles. And, while I haven’t reviewed them, the Sunseeker X3 costs the same, or more than, other robot lawnmowers that are more capable on paper."

    5. Carrick, Tony; Morgan, Kate (2025-06-02). "The 5 Best Robot Lawn Mowers Cut Grass Perfectly So You Don't Have To". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24. Retrieved 2025-11-24.

      The review notes: "The Sunseeker L22 relies on ultrasonic technology and bumper sensors to weave around trees and avoid landscaping beds or other obstacles that might interrupt a rectangular mowing path. It even allows you to fine-tune how close it gets to obstacles as it works its way around them, so you can give delicate landscaping features a wide berth. If it does bump into something, it also has a safety mechanism that will halt the mower in its tracks."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Sunseeker brand to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology&oldid=1325603447"