Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

ISO/TC 176

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to establish its notability. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to ISO 900 family or International Organization for Standardization but could unbalance those articles. Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SPH-A460

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find evidence that this is a notable product. There are various Samsung-related articles it potentially could be redirected to as an WP:ATD, but none stand out as ones that are suitable. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statrys

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTIFY does not allow redraftiification without formal consensus, so here we are. WP:ADMASQ, this is a WP:ROTM business, failing WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Hong Kong, and France. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of meeting WP:NCORP, all the coverage is trivial. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Apollo AR924

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT. Seems only notable within the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Article did not exist prior to the explosions, nor seemingly any reliable sources covering it, failing the "sustained coverage" requirement of NPRODUCT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Taiwan, Lebanon, and Hungary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copying here what I wrote when I WP:PRODded this article yesterday:

This particular model of pager seems to be notable only in the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. I can find no mention of "Gold Apollo AR-924," "Gold Apollo AR924" or "Gold Apollo AR" outside of news sources reporting the Israeli bombings. "Gold Apollo pager" returns only results for these news articles, the company's website, patent documents, and similar. The sources currently cited at the article fail the criteria for addressing the article topic "directly," as in the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG.

While the particular model of pager is likely to receive a good amount of (temporary) media scrutiny from a few outlets, this will likely be only in the context of the above-mentioned bombings. Although WP:SUSTAINED does not apply to non-BLP articles, WP:NPRODUCT does, and although secondary sources refer to this particular device, there seems to be no claim to notability outside of this single event, for which we already have an article. Thus, I believe this article fails to establish notability for the topic, and our status as not an indiscriminate collection of information is applicable. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The model exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x50wwGjX2Ao

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20240917160632/https://www.apollosystemshk.com/product/42.html Mheretakis (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to wait as evidence unfolds, hiding the page ,may be misinterpreted as corruption even though it is not. 38.9.2.102 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is suggesting this information should be hidden. Information about the attack has it's own article. The only information specific to this article is just the features of this device, which are not secret. This discussion is about if this article is notable enough to exist, not if it should be censored. Thank you 2603:6011:9440:D700:CC1F:F350:E9EB:5F48 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other model of pager produced by the company exists on Wikipedia, information related to this product should be at most made a small section on the manufacturer's page. Beyond recent events, it is otherwise completely irrelevant to anything other than the company. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was a completely non-notable model of pager until this recent news story. Andre🚐 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ → Speedy keep. This is a weapon used in an attack. With up to 4000 victims, the event can have multiple articles. Possibly move to BAC Consulting. The technical details of the pager are not important, but the supply chain is. Note, that other weapons (talkie-talkies) were also used in the attack. The key question the article needs to answer is who made the pagers and who is responsible for their safety, Gold Apollo or BAC Consulting. Protecting Gold Apollo from bad publicity is not a reason for deleting the article. If they go bankrupt because of this, they fully deserve it. They had a responsibility to protect their trade mark.

P.S. - Wikipedia has an article on Stuxnet, but no article on the attack itself or the damage it caused. The Stuxnet article focuses on the weapon and on how it was delivered. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very flawed. The weapon was the explosives. Stuxnet was specific malware that exploited four zero day Windows vulnerabilities, and the article is about the engineered malware, and not about the model of USB drive it initially infected. But also that argument is off the point. The pager product is only notable if there are reliable independent secondary sources that significantly discuss the pager (not the attack, but the actual pager). Do we have any such sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petri Krohn; There is an article for the attack itself. Parham wiki (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am now changing my !vote to speedy keep. It is becoming evident that the AR924 was not just some random Gold Apollo pager intercepted by Mossad (presumedly), but it was designed and manufactured by the Israelis using the Hungarian company BAC Consulting as a front. This implies that this was a multi-year Israeli operation, started in 2022 at the latest. This covert operation is distinct from the bloodshed that happened in Lebanon this week. I am redirecting BAC Consulting, to the article, as evidently the fake company had no other purpose than to produce these killer pagers.

@Parham wiki; Thank you for the link to Operation Olympic Games. In the Stuxnet case the article on the weapon is ten times as long as the article on the attack itself. I believe we will see a similar trend here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Someone has stated Draft:BAC Consulting. I have suggested that it be merged to Gold Apollo AR924. The company is a fake front, established solely to produce the AR924 killer pagers. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should only bold one of your keeps. By convention at AfD we only bold our !votes once. Also you have not specified a speedy criterion. I don't think any are eligible. I think you mean you are moving from keep to keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gold Apollo#2024 Israeli tampering and explosions in Lebanon per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:SPINOUT, and WP:LENGTH. The parent article has existed since 2014 and has plenty of room to house this information, which is already there in its essential form. No need to delete this highly searchable term since it is a verified product which has been rendered notable by recent events. Havradim leaf a message 01:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many thousands of these devices exploded the other day, injuring, maiming or killing nearly 3000 people. This device is now by far the most notable pager/beeper ever made. This device is at the very center of one of the most dramatic and historic espionage and irregular warfare operations in human history that is certain to be studied and analyzed for many years to come. Already, numerous reliable sources worldwide are discussing this device in great detail, and it boggles my mind that some editors think that this article should be summarily removed. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in this argument is that the exact make and model of pager that was manipulated does not provide justification for an article. Similarly, we have Bulgarian umbrella that details how umbrellas have been rebuilt into a murder weapon - but without creating an article on the actual model of umbrella that was modified - exactly because the make and model of the modified implement does not in itself provide it with notability. Lklundin (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that model may have only been made as a weapon by a covert manufacturer. Hungary denies involvement, says BAC was just a legal front. The page should be about AR924 the weapon. Keysersmoze (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the discussion of this device and the supply chain should be in the main explosion article, which is currently a small fraction of the size that would warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Cullen328. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the arguments of Cullen328 the information about the attack is highly important. A separate article on the pager that itself is notable only for the attack prevents a centralized and well organized presentation of the information on these explosions. Lklundin (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to BAC page. Please count my vote. Flegozoff (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are not counted, consensus is determined based on the strength of arguments. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is a historical first time. This product became important, indeed people looked on Wikipedia for this article (and it is good that they found it).Sinucep (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The device is notable. Whether or not it was notable a week ago is irrelevant. —danhash (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? What sources do we have? I asked this above and so far we have been presented with no sources to consider. We are looking for significant coverage of the product in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. No amount of saying it is notable is good enough. Where are the sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 19 sources on the article —danhash (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these meet WP:NPRODUCT and WP:SIRS? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am a deletionist when it comes to mobiles, and similar devices. But as this device was a centre/key point in a major attack, many reliable sources have covered the device significantly (thus meeting WP:significant coverage) making it pass the WP:GNG, so it doesn't have to pass WP:NPRODUCT specifically. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already articles for both the attack and the company who had the pager manufactured. Some information could go there. There are a lot of sources mentioning the pager, but only in the context of the attack. Specific coverage is lacking. Cortador (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alleged usage of this device in Lebanon makes this particular model of pager notable, regardless of whether similar models are on Wikipedia. Those similar models did not just explode in masse, killing and injuring people. 96.45.23.79 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was not notable before, the major attacks using this device make it notable now. Keeper of the Queen's Corgis (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edited and updated, not deleted. It should be about the AR924 mass produced and used in conflict weapon, not an article about a pager model. The story is developing and it appears this model may have only been produced as a weapon and not in Hungary which was a shell front. As a page about a weapon, it should be kept for the same reason "Little Boy" has a page, even though no one heard about it until after it exploded over Hiroshima, and it was also only used once. I am sure there is a page about the Manhattan Project, and one about the Hiroshima bombing. Yet the bomb itself has its own page. Notable weapons, especially the first of their type, need their own page because weapons have a design, explosive type and mass, range and effect, delivery method, an assembly, a development process, country that developed it, countries that possess it, number produced, uses in war. The AR924 is clearly notable for reasons mentioned by others and some of the reasons Little Boy is notable. Keysersmoze (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Keeper of the Queen's Corgis and Cullen328, but most of all per Keysersmoze's comment above. The first instance of an entirely new kind of weapon; mass-manufactured booby-trapped remote-detonated personal devices. — The Anome (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if these are specifically manufactured as a booby trap device and are not a standard pager that was modified with a logic board and explosive, then it clearly becomes notable. But, what are the secondary sources that show this please? We have a lot of keeps, but still there is still no source discussion at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given this article is not notable outside the attack on Hezbollah - and given half the article is about the attack, what if this page is deleted and a brief summary of the features of these pager's features is added to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, as it could provide a little context as to why Hezbollah chose these pagers. Once deleted, this article and BAC Consulting should redirect to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, as both are solely notable for that attack (BAC Consulting was created exclusively for the attack; it can't be notable for anything else). If these pagers were used in another completely separate attack, or were popular outside of Hezbollah/Lebanon and Syria prior to the attack, then I would keep. However, that is not the case. We don't have a crystal ball, but it seems unlikely very many people will buy this specific brand after this incident.2603:6011:9440:D700:CC1F:F350:E9EB:5F48 (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2024 Lebanon pager explosions - the model was at the center of the attack, and outside of it is not notable. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the story behind the logistical “capture” of the Hezbollah supply chain gets into the public domain, it will ensure the notability of the Gold Apollo AR924 as a weapon. Article is also already available in three other languages. Sobaka (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AR 924 is undoubtedly the most famous pager in the world today, and in any case even before the explosions it was one of the most famous, as demonstrated by the sales figures and the fact that Hezbollah chose this model, which was therefore already known in some countries where the mobile network is not as developed. It certainly owes its current fame to recent events, in the same way as the iPhone 16, which for now is only famous because it was released 10 days ago and no one is surprised that it has a separate entry.--Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one has provided any example of which sources meet WP:NPRODUCT. If someone is looking for this pager model they will be interested in the pager attacks where this is already mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connecteam

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first AfD was... somewhat disrupted, but the rationale is substantially the same as that one, I just kinda forgot to renominate after the DRV (oops). In my judgement, there is no way in hell the subject in question meets ORGCRIT, whether in english or non-english sources, and nothing I've seen since the aforementioned discussions move the needle in the slightest. Here's hoping if anyone brings up new sources that they're at least vaguely plausible in therms of meeting WP:SIRS? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant and persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the company, such as Globes Calcalist Geektime Jerusalem Post Globes 2 Globes 3 Whizkin (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Whizkin, are you aware that funding announcements are explicitly listed at WP:ORGTRIV? They are neither significant coverage, nor independent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong, but I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the policy, which says 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital.' These are not standard notices, brief announcements, or routine coverage based merely on a press release. In my opinion, these are full-blown articles about the company, containing analysis beyond the capital event. Whizkin (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage of capital raises includes the marketing material companies put out and the churn directly derived from it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large fraction of business press coverage is initiated as a result of public relations work by companies. Dismissing any coverage that results from a funding press release as "trivial" seems excessive. Is that written somewhere, or is it your interpretation?

And, there are plenty of other sources about the company unrelated to funding, for example:

Calcalist

~~Geektime~~

Ice

Ynet Whizkin (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whizkin... The whole point of NCORP is to avoid hosting articles purely composed of PR from the companies being written about. What did you think WP:ORGIND was for? Are you sure you want to assert the second article has any semblance of meeting ORGIND? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the second source from the above list, which is an interview, does not meet the requirement "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." - I'll strike it out. Whizkin (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. Delete or merge with Visvesvaraya Technological University or NITTE as per the existing affiliation. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 6 sources on the page. 1 2,3,4,5 sources can not be reached and 6 is just a table of different universities and the subject does not even have entry in it. Even if there was entry, it still is a poor source with no significant coverage. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Faragher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be Toffeenix (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation [1]. He is also the 2023 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Medal and Prize [2]. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record [3] in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maitland Telephone Museum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Couldn't find any significant coverage. I suggest a redirect to Maitland Historical Museum. C F A 💬 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Technology, and Florida. C F A 💬 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge together with the historical museum referenced in the nom to Art and History Museums - Maitland (red link will be fixed shortly). Neither has standalone notability per sourcing I've found and can be amply covered in the soon to be target article. Star Mississippi 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now exists. I think it meets N:ORG regardless of how this closes, but it makes sense as a target. Star Mississippi 22:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebID Solutions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely not notable company that does not fulfill NCORP guidelines; poor sources Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:NCORP due to verifiable significant coverage in major, notable German newspapers over a period of years. I cannot understand why the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Rheinische Post, the Wirtschaftswoche, Der Tagesspiegel, Handelsblatt, Börsen-Zeitung and others would be considered "poor sources" by the nominator; please explain the rationale for that assessment. Netherzone (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Audacity to Podcast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass WP:N or WP:NPODCAST. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources when doing a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Popular culture, Technology, Internet, and Software. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tagged for multiple notability issues since 2021. Nothing better.Esthersp (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast received two awards and was a major factor in its host's being inducted into the Podcast Hall of Fame.

Additional notability and citations added. 8thNote (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most coverage I find is promo, "how to start a podcast" and the like. Source 5 is a RS per Cite Highlighter, but I can't open a full version and it's only one source anyway... We don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

IT Journalism Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no independent WP:SIGCOV for this niche regional industry awards program. All of the coverage is either on the award program's own site, or it's in news outlets touting their own journalists' wins and nominations and thus not independent. A handful of WP:TRADES coverage items as well but that doesn't contribute to notability and thus this subject fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, Technology, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit today - it does get quite good coverage in mainstream media, has been running for 21 years, has quite a lot of incoming links, and IMO passes GNG now, if it didn't before. Gaming is also another topic which probably receives less coverage in WP than its popularity would suggest (and one I know little about), and these awards are highly prized in that industry. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources have you added that you think are independent and reliable? They’re still mainstream sources talking about their own wins in the awards (and thus not independent), self published sources (not reliable) or trade publications (not independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a lot of sources but some are used merely to confirm sponsors. Other sources confirm individual winners without being significant coverage of the actual awards. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+Keep I think that awards fall under WP:SNG anyway, and the sources are Independent of the subject per the definition - "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". They are in mainstream media that are not affiliated with the award. In addition, there is a significant number of incoming links, and the awards are significant to Australian IT journalists. I really don't see the point of deleting something that is serving a useful purpose of describing these awards. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.

Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"

Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:

Delete -

Wikipedia's criteria for notability regarding articles about academics are listed as follows:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

I do not believe any of these apply here.

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Does not apply here.

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Does not apply here.

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Does not apply here.

It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the closer: Please treat the now-blocked accounts Pantrail and Xerxescience as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of notability, no independent reliable sources about this. Being offered on some sites is not the same as having the necessary sourcing about the subject. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and Brazil. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that this subject has a significant amount of traction on social media websites like Twitter/X, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. This is difficult to directly cite due to its lack of centralization and login requirements. Still, I would like to think that this subject is notable given that it achieved its publishers' requirements for quality. That said, this subject is relatively new, and I am sure that, in time, more direct evidence of notability will become available. Any suggestions to rectify this in the meantime are appreciated. DreamWeav3r95 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with 3D printed firearm per WP:PRODUCT. Right now I lean heavier towards deletion as the only sources relevant to the actual gun itself are from what looks like the designer's own website- the other sources make no mention of the gun. Getting social media traction is not in and of itself a qualifier for notability. Archimedes157 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have two interviews/podcast with the developer/designer

which are :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLD4geWKA4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmZ8dkvOwyM

Also, it is notable that It is the first Bullpup submachine gun/PCC that anyone can make in the world and not based on the FGC-9.

This design is not based on any previous gun design

the only thing it has in common with the fgc-9 is its barrel

I lean toward keeping this page Superlincoln (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
independent reliable sources of the Urutau :

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/tag/urutau/

https://3dprintgeneral.com/portfolio/the-brazilian-jstark-ze-carioca-3dpgp-ep19/

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yveilleuxlepage_about-an-hour-ago-the-files-for-the-urutau-activity-7231845456090165248-8Leu

https://ctrlpew.com/file-drop-the-urutau/ Superlincoln (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau is mentioned in Armament Research Services (ARES) Research Report 8: Desktop Firearms Desktop Firearms:

Emergent Small Arms Craft Production Technologies 2023 update page 30-31

https://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ARES-Research-Report-No-8-Desktop-Firearms-2023-Update-EARLY-ACCESS.pdf

I think this is enough independent reliable sources about the Urutau right? Superlincoln (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Terror: An Empirical Overview of the Use of 3D-Printed Firearms by Right-Wing Extremists:

However, recent developments within the 3DPF community are concerning, as they seem to focus on further lowering the barriers to entry for producing 3DPF. Noteworthy developments include the ‘Nutty 9,’ an improved bolt design for the FGC-9 consisting of nothing more than four nuts and two bolts screwed into a printed connector piece, and the development of the Urutau—a soon-to-be-released hybrid pistol-caliber carbine—that is said to be significantly easier to build than the FGC-9.

[4]https://ctc.westpoint.edu/printing-terror-an-empirical-overview-of-the-use-of-3d-printed-firearms-by-right-wing-extremists/

Urutau was mentioned in the 3D-Printed Firearms and Terrorism: Trends and Analysis Pertinent to Far-Right Use

5 times

[5]https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778663?seq=2 Superlincoln (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of 3D printed weapons and parts and/or FGC-9. I do not think this meets the GNG yet, though it might be close. The mentions in the academic papers are insufficient to establish notability since they are only trivial, passing mentions with no detail. However, the ARES Research Report is an independent source with several paragraphs on the Urutau. A LinkedIn post by an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada seems promising but he admits in the post to having lacking "expertise in that area" thus his post doesn't meet the expertise guideline for self-published sources. As for the blog posts, YouTube videos, and other primary sources, they (in my opinion) all fall well below the bar for verifiability. If another secondary source of the quality, independence and verifiability of the ARES Research Report can be found, I would change my vote. Richard Ye^talk 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different suggested Merge target articles. Of course, content can be merged to multiple articles but we need a primary article in order to close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure the new second amendment is what we're looking for as far a sourcing goes... This is about all the coverage there is [6], rest are un-RS. Seems like PROMO with most of the sourcing being primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to "3d printed firearms" is probably the best place to send it to. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into FGC-9 (the primary article) as the gun won't have been designed if FGC-9 did not exist and merge it into the List of 3D printed weapons and parts as the secondary article. Superlincoln (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still lean heavier towards delete, but more people seem to support a merge or at least not totally deleting the article, and I agree with Richard Ye that List of 3D printed weapons and parts is probably the best place to merge it. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still have two target articles being proposed with equal support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of 3D printed weapons and parts. Reference already exists within FGC-9 article as well, the subject does not meet WP:GNG for a standalone article. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Malabar Institute of Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This exists, but even the very stubby article doesn't prove it. Its own website server fails to respond. Not inherently notable. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Back in 2015 the creating editor twice removed a {{merge to}} template, refusing to discuss it. I am not averse to a merge if deemed appropriate 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kannur University. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and increase to a stub article. Win-win ending. Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Kellpb93ke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What does "win win ending" mean here? LibStar (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vandalism-only account so their comment should be disregarded. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Institute have no individual sources fails WP:NCORP. Xegma(talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]