Wiki English
Wiki EnglishWiki DeutschWiki Nederlands

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Technology

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Technology.

< Wiki: WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Technology
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.
    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.


wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Technology 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

Alexandru Sorin Biris

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [1][2] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Informatics & Communications Technology Complex

Most substantial source cited is a student newspaper article from time of construction. Further searches suggest that neither original construction or recent developments appear to have generated significant independent coverage. All coverage is from university or contractor press releases, or passing mentions as location of various departments. No indication building meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Scholars Program

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medium-power talker

Another WP:DICTDEF from Wiki: Federal Standard 1037C terms with zero usage outside of dictionaries. I assume a "talker" refers to a loudspeaker or similar device, but I can't find much info about it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level

Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Generation time. A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate. Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs. However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application. I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation), as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (automobile)

This car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, Transportation, and France. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page for X-branded cars The three hatnotes at the very least justify that use and we can retain this make as part of it. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Convert. MrSchimpf's proposal seems good to me. My understanding is that the Tesla will likely be referred to more commonly as "Model X" than just "X", and as for the other two their readership counts are both below 200 per day, which to me is not sufficient to decide the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. S5A-0043Talk 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems like a good alternative to me. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, there should be a disambig for X-branded cars but usually disambs are just a list of links to other pages and there will be no other page for this 1908 automobile. But, in the spirit of incremental improvement, I'm happy to accept this proposal and do the best we can with it now and assume there will be further improvement in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instablog9ja.com

I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that establishes the notability of this blog/website. All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be. Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wiki: Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Neural Network Society

Originally a redirect to Neural Networks (journal). Article created in its original form by obvious COI editor Internationalneuralnetworksociety, which was reverted to a redirect. Very similar article then created by Hailneum, whose only other contribution is twice-failed AFC submission Draft:International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

Sources cited in the article are either:

  • primary: 1, 4, 5
  • passing mentions: all else

Other coverage of the organisation I was able to locate includes a few passing mentions in newspapers at the time of its founding; and a handful of passing mentions in an "oral history", which is mostly transcripts of interviews with people involved with the organisation.

In short, despite the existence of Stephen Grossberg and the journal, there does not seem sufficient inherent notability to meet either GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see the organisation having recieved signficant coverage, or at least signifcant enough to meet NORG, hence I would have to agree with the nominator. Golem08 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Wiles

8-year orphaned permastub on a "technology entrepreneur" with a single middling reference. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lambert

Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
      • Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
      • Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
      • Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
      • Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
      • Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
      • The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
      – Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.
          On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of DNS blacklists

Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wiki ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wiki English. Please reach out to me on [email protected] to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton

The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wiki English.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wiki isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Two points:
      Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
      You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.
      I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [3], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [4]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [5], and in context of national university organization [6] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [7][8][9][10]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i

Non-notable – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).

The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi @Liz – I left a message over at your talk page related to this nomination. AlexGallon (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep 1, 2, 3, 4 A gadget that was widely reviewed at the time of its release from major pubs and had lasting coverage. Tech products's notability largely depends on reviews. Not every MP3 players in the market get reviewed from big tech pubs. The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Here's a more appropriate source that independently states the claim: The bite-size MobiBLU DAH-1500i is the smallest, most impressively full-featured Flash player we've seen yet. - PCMag UK, Jun 27, 2018. X (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. One of thousands of mp3 players. Refs don't say anything, they're mundane reviews. Desertarun (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Hi Sadads,
  • Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.
    Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.
    Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.
    Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.
    In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wiki English. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.
        I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creepTalk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creepTalk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:
  1. CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
  2. The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
  3. California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
  4. GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
  5. MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)
      Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.
      There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.
      This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -
      I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.
      Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.
    As for the books: Art Without Waste just has pictures of two BoomCases with no information beyond bare captions; Retro and Vintage Design manages a bare six sentences; Made to Last... OK, that one might actually qualify as a decent source. But we need multiple independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I'll grant you've got one. – Teratix ₵ 07:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags:

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Technology Technologywikiproject Deletion Sorting/TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat

🔥 Trending searches on Wiki English:

National Basketball AssociationFrancis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)Dead Internet theoryWrestleMania XLThe Gentlemen (2024 TV series)Jake Paul vs. Mike TysonTajikistanQueen CamillaThe Walking Dead (TV series)PhilippinesThe Masked Singer (American season 11)Andre Jin CoquillardJordan CameronFábián MarozsánMichelle PhillipsFTXGeneration AlphaChallengers (film)St Nazaire RaidMoonBarack ObamaPassoverWikipediaXHamsterGeorge VIWorld War II123MoviesGeneration ZBernie MadoffArvind KejriwalShaquille O'NealRepublican Party (United States)New York CityEnglish languageMosesAditi Rao HydariStevie JFacebookKazakhstanMegamind vs. the Doom Syndicate2024 Indian general election in MaharashtraPriscilla PresleyTyla (South African singer)Wonka (film)The Zone of Interest (film)Adolf HitlerEminemThe Black PhoneLand of BadWilliam Adams (pilot)Elizabeth HolmesEkaterina AlexandrovaThe Pirate BayJeff HealeyMaya RudolphLarry DavidPakistanTwitch (service)Kwena MaphakaNatalie PortmanChaturbateMillennialsJess Hong2024 Summer OlympicsDenis VilleneuveJennifer LawrenceIndian Premier LeagueFIFA World CupDuffy (singer)Rebecca HallCharles BronsonRyan GoslingVon Erich familyLondon🡆 More