This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Technology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Technology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

SVOX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. No results from a before search except for some press releases. Contested PROD. Justiyaya 08:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EngageMedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

10 of the 14 sources are its own website. Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Technology, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NORG. AgerJoy talk 07:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article was created by a single purpose account so probable WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:BLP1E. While there are few reliable sources covering her crowdfunding efforts for education, other sources are either self-published or not independent such as[1], [2], [3] etc. Herinalian (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Udit Goenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references cited in the article revolve around a single tweet he made in the Bangalore vs. Gurgaon debate regarding the better place for tech companies. These sources primarily cover the controversy rather than his personal achievements or sustained impact in his field. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Software, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurhan Kiziloz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, as most references focus on Lanistar and its FCA issues rather than him. The article also suffers from REFBOMB, creating a false sense of notability. With no in-depth, independent coverage about him, it fails to meet the inclusion criteria. Herinalian (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although Gurhan Kiziloz is not independently notable, Lanistar appears to meet notability criteria due to significant coverage. However, most sources are critical of Lanistar, highlighting its fishy marketing campaign[4] and its involvement with Gavin Williamson[5]. A separate article on the company may be more appropriate. Herinalian (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LLM-generated (It cited this article as a source!) disruptive BLP policy-violating content from 80.192.86.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is to discuss whether articles meet the notability guidelines. Aydoh8^[contribs] 00:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - is primarily about the company and should be redirected there - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TM Technologies (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources required per NCORP; press releases or other not relevant not reliable references Cinder painter (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, under WP:G11, this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reverted on the AfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clayton_Banks on 5 December by 24eeWikiUser, and suspiciously reuploaded by another editor 2 days later into main Wikipedia space. Seems like an organized attempt to push the person onto Wikipedia. The sources provided did not allow to establish the person's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Elemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are bunch of dependent pieces that fail the GNG criteria. They’re either WP:DOGBITESMAN or WP:MILL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Another non notable article about a Nigerian entrepreneur and CEO. The article fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources are press releases about the grant won by his company. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KAD ICT Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article for a non-notable, WP:MILL local tech training facility. Sources are promotional and often unbylined churnalism ([6], [7], [8]), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([9], [10]), an article based entirely on an interview with the subject's founder, and an affiliated testimonial. Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Technology, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see how this pass WP:ORGCRIT from the current sources and a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don’t agree with the assessment that this article from TechpointAfrica is an unbylined churnalism at all but I’ve found myself on the delete !vote because I was unable to find more sources. I’d be willing to change my !vote if more sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Small IT school. Inherently non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article fails WP:NCORP Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chord (music). MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TEXEL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely promotional/COI article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Adding a findsources below for the earlier article title (on which there was a no-consensus move discussion, but it has been moved anyway). AllyD (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A lot of content has been deleted since the AFD nomination. When considering whether there is any notability, it is probably better to utilise this version. AllyD (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stratellite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about prototype, never-commercialized product of now-defunct company created in 2004 "after reading Slashdot article". Company seems to have been a mix of "startup business venture" and "scheme to defraud investors". What things a Web search turns up appear to be either regurgitation of press releases from the company, or stuff copied from this WP article. No news mentions post-2000s. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTABILITY. Slowking Man (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Technology, and Aviation. Slowking Man (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, I disputed this PROD since it did not appear right procedural. As I linked in my edit summary, AP appears to have covered it "Floating an idea: Replace ugly towers with high-flying blimps". IgelRM (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence this passes WP:NCORP with WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond a brief flurry of PR-driven coverage around its launch. The article itself is highly speculative and fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Reid (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability Boynamedsue (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three sources on the article this one is a local news report about a bathroom mirror that advertises and spies on people in the toilet. This one does not appear to give sigcov, as Brian Reid is not the topic of the article, but is an employee of the same. This one is an interview and therefore is not valid for establishing notability. I suspect this article may have started as either WP:COI or as a paid article.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Advertising, American football, Technology, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Man doing his job. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gate count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prodded with the rationale: "WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics." Deprodded with the edit summary "Tech Term Used". — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the current state of the article is pretty bad but I think we can make an article about this term. This paper from NIST discusses the effects of minimizing gate count on hardware efficiency; it appears to be used in quite a bit of quantum computing literature (see here); and this book has a couple sentences about how minimizing gate count "gives a simple estimate of the implementation cost of a reversible circuit" and minimizes "area and power consumption". I don't think this is the most notable topic in the world, but sufficient sourcing does exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the WP: SYNTH. That doesn't require a deletion discussion to go forward with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perhaps I'll withdraw in that case. My searching was not exhaustive, so I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that this was simply a generic technical term, which isn't something inherently notable. If it's something important and notable within computing (not exactly my area of expertise), then it should indeed be kept. — Anonymous 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep provided the named sources are added. I agree that this looks like it should squeak by the notability threshold given this material, and it looks possible that more sources may be found later. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm thinking the subject should be merged into Digital electronics#Design_issues_in_digital_circuits, which is mostly junk right now but which really does need to address this. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cerego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This one may be close but appears to me to fail WP:NCORP. References from Venture Beat and The Next Web are churnalism based on the announcement of the company's launch back in 2012. There is this which appears to meet WP:ORGCRIT but everything else is routine announcements or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, United States of America, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to Business Journals piece, there's [11] from NPR and [12] from Forbes. Both seem significant and independent to me, so I think this would qualify as multiple examples of GNG. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. I'd also think a company that is over 25 years old would have more than one WP:ORGCRIT reference from 2014 if it was in fact notable under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I believe it passes GNG based on the source analysis and mentions. Could be on a weaker side though NatalieTT (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)—WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious which sources would meet WP:ORGCRIT in your opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WSJ, NPR, and the military publications are significantly about the company's product(s). I can't judge the reliability of the military pubs but they do provide information about product use that seems solid. That said, the article could use work if it's going to provide useful info. Lamona (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that WSJ satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH? Sources must meet WP:ORGCRIT and I do not see any, other than NPR, that would meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am saying. And that I consider the military articles to be relevant and reliable. I also see other sources, such as:

• "Cerego's iKnow! Wins Prestigious DEMOgod Award at DEMOfall 08." Science Letter, 30 Sept. 2008, p. 3270. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A185816485/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=aaa046a9. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• "McGraw-Hill Education and Cerego." Tech & Learning, vol. 35, no. 9, Apr. 2015, p. 48. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A419267807/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=04a4f19c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• "Cerego." Training, vol. 56, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2019, p. 8. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A608614910/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=b3437ac8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• CEREGO & BBC BITESIZE. (2019, March 1). Tech & Learning, 39(7), 39.

I looked at these and they don't seem to be re-hashes of PR (there is quite a lot of that). I haven't looked at how they might fit into the article. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a routine announcement and the other are mentions so they fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the WSJ, NPR and the military sources. And here's another one relating to Cerego and BBC: [13]. I count this now as 5 sources. One could argue that they are more about the product than the company, and that comes up a lot with products. Ideally the article should decide which it is emphasizing. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant plural - "the others are mentions so they fall short." - BBC may meet CORPDEPTH, but the rest, including this one you just cited, is considered a routine announcement so fails WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]