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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology[edit]

Philtech Institute of Arts and Technology[edit]

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

Fairly new private school with questionable notability. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VINAStech[edit]

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

This article seems like a WP:PROMO, most of the sources are not in depth like confirming their clients. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashaba Victor[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. The company that he works for VINAStech is also up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some content might be work merging to the article on the local senatus for the Legion of Mary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinebulle[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. toweli (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Aviation. toweli (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me neither. no sigcov. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronix corporation[edit]

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

Purely promotional. Can we move it to the draft or delete? Tanhasahu (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to Delete, the company is no longer in business 76.192.65.129 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've found one source, Tilly, Chris; Carré, Françoise J. (2017). Where bad jobs are better: Retail jobs across countries and companies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 42, 62–63, 65–67, 94, 97, 108. ISBN 978-1-61044-870-3. which seems reasonable. Usually what we do for these older, poorly sourced articles where pretty much nobody would even know has been draftified is to reduce it to a stub of a few sentences, basically what can be verified to the sources and which tone would not be a problem, and then tagg it with the relevant Wikipedia:Maintenance tags. Would this be acceptable to the two of you, Tanhasahu and Sgubaldo? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to that book, but if that's the case, then sure. The only mentions in the books I can find are very brief. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Deletion will be better. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDIV[edit]

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

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Websites. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for Jay, Shhhnotsoloud, and Tavix, who participated in the previous discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic[edit]

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

This article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage in WW2 era trade magazines, this type-written report on the company [1] in particular gives details on them. Some coverage in Swiss newspapers, this [2] and [3]. Scientific testing on some of their products [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be revised, several links should be added. But the organization's technologies are important and noticeable in the context of the industry.--Assirian cat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Yuan Hui[edit]

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

sources only or mainly about the company; not enough right now both reliable references and person's notability 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a very interesting figure to me as creator of Xiao-i robot and "China's ChatGPT". his views on AI have been featured extensively by Chinese media (when he spoke at Boao forum for Asia etc; has been attending this prestige event eight years in a row). believe the article can stand as being about an AI expert from China to diversify the discussion. also to mention the patent litigation with Apple is kinda intriguing as well. XiaoMming (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral mainly per nom. Are Caixin articles worth anything? Remsense诉 10:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connecteam[edit]

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

Sources available in the usual searches seem to be a mirror of what's already in the article, funding announcements, which are excluded under WP:ORGTRIV, and the product reviews on miscellaneous sites which do not have the requisite reputation for fact checking to be considered RS (Forbes Advisor and Investopedia both also fall under this latter category). Searches for קונקטים appear to be more or less the same (e.g. [5], [6]) though I just dumped it at the usual English language search engines, I'm not sure if there is a more comprehensive index for Hebrew language web sources outside GBY.

With these sources, it is not currently possible to write an article to our current standards (i.e. more than just a list of funding announcements) so unfortunately this company might not be suited for this encyclopedia. Perhaps it might be able to find its home on a more specialised or comprehensive publication or database, or back here at a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 10 May 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) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the basic media coverage contributes to the subject’s notability. Also, the famous and influential Israeli newspaper the Globes named the it as the most promising station in the country. Given the power of Israel tech and venture industry that is significantly in itself. Prhinohoursers (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom if not A7. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This company also seems unremarkable. Why should we have an article on them? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good reliable sources I've just found and added and the remaining ones. Also the company has quite noticeable/notable achievements, some industry impact and notability, demonstrated by the available references. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What. You can't possibly think a random self-published book is a reliable source. It's not even in Italian. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:SIGCOV. MeltPees (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've analyzed the page and found some good sources already there, including Forbes staff, Jerusalem Post, and Globes with in-depth coverage. Additionally, I took the responsibility to dig deeper and added several new trustworthy sources with extensive coverage from top business news media in the US and Israel. Among the Israel-based sources are Calcalist, Globes, The Marker, etc. --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Added the lacking Review section for the software as it is usually used across other similar pages. Significant reviews from Business.com, TechRadar, US News, and Forbes were added - both with positive and negative details. The page covers both the company and the software comprehensively with reliable sources. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leverx[edit]

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

Unfortunately, aside from the usual announcements and sponsored articles (excluded under WP:ORGTRIV and ORGIND respectively), I was unable to find any relevant coverage. The topic may be more suitable in a more comprehensive publication or database. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Florida. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable subject for wikipedia --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong page vote, was not planned for here --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a consultancy operating in SAP integration, etc. The given references are announcement-based; as the nominator indicates, these fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for Leverx or Emerline. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norconex Web Crawler[edit]

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

It's a shame, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the barest of mentions in independent RS. A redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers would probably be the best option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers: per nomination, currently fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage at all from independent sources Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 references listed which from independent sources.

Please also take a look at Mentions in Academic Research portion where academic research with mentions of the Crawler are listed. These are independent sources as well. OhTwadi (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which having barely significant coverage... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see other open source crawlers which have much less in terms of content and/or references and yet are considered fine. One example: MnoGoSearch OhTwadi (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could see, that article was considered "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination". Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eat This Much[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT at the moment, unfortunately. The CNN article seems borderline, but I could not find anything else meeting even that standard. Broader topic of "meal planning service" might satisfy NLIST though, in which case it may be possible to mention and redirect it there in the future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Websites. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8] [9] and [10] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [11], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [12], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [13], [14], [15], [16]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level[edit]

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - I've had time not to research this after deprodding it and have not found sufficient sourcing to establish notability or even provide additional context to what is being presented here. There are no important incoming links so deleting without prejudice is unlikely to create any issues for readers or editors. I am unable to identify any WP:ATDs. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed[edit]

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications. I could also live with a delete, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction. If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be. It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation).

I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here. The reason I am not !voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed, as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor. When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Google results are odd. Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology. When I search for reproduction speed, 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.

I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate". I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed. Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target. Mgp28 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)[edit]

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

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia: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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We just did this one and it's back again. !Merge as suggested less than 6mths ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned my position/opinion is on Talk:EcoCute (Japan), please refer.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Note that previous AfD was closed as merge despite the fact that it appears one editors were advocating for keep, one (nominator) for merge, and one for delete: it seems more like no consensus to me. Appears to have some international coverage from fiz-karlsruhe.de that's already cited in the article. ja:エコキュート has lots of coverage including from Yomiuri, Mainichi, Kyodo, NHK, and more including an award from ja:発明協会. I also found this magazine featuring it. I would also rename to get rid of the parenthetical per WP:PARENDIS. DCsansei (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Re-creating a page that was closed as merge, now with a spurious disambiguation, is not constructive. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the procedural point but that this AfD should still be evaluated on its own merits. I don't think a prior AfD with 3 !votes advocating for 3 different positions should prejudice this discussion. DCsansei (talk) 12:03, 10 May 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) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the previous discussion but have only just now become aware of this one. Also Wikiproject Energy was on the previous article but until now this article had no Wikiprojects on this talk page. Is there any way you could automatically notify people who were watching the previous article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO₂ reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As I argued previously, if I remember right, nowadays this is not sufficiently different from other air source heat pumps to merit a separate article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As I have only now added projects to the talk page will they still be automatically notified of this discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, again~~: History of EcoCute merged after discussion in to Air source heat pump as section, then section deleted/eliminated without any talk, then ECoCute (Jpapan) created. Now EcoCute (Japan) is on AfD/ Merged again. If resulted to mereged in this discuss again and again, can anyone garantee protect/not be eliminated section EcoCute or EcoCute (Japan) by Banners like SfD (Section for Detele) for discussion, KS (Keep this Section) or something else.

Following step 1) - 4) is the editing history.

1) EcoCute, First AfD - EcouCute AfD Discussion resulted as merge on 17 February 2024

2) Then deletedm and merged into Air source heat pump EcoCute deleted, merged as section and redirected on 18 February 2024

3) Sudden Deleted section EcoCute on 27 March 2024 from Article Air source heat pump without any talk/discuss.

4) EcoCute, redirect to Fresh article EcoCute (Japan) on 25 April 2024--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with keep, note that you only get one vote so you should consolidate your argument into one section or re-label one of them as a comment DCsansei (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know nobody can guarantee that a merged section would not be deleted. I agree with @MrOllie that the section was too lengthy and only covered one product. However as this seems to have been very ahead of its time I believe it should be covered briefly in the air source heat pump article along with some other companies and/or products. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted the section because it was a WP:UNDUE problem and looked like an advertisement for one company's product in that context. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls See section of talk page of EcoCute (Japan), '''Manufactures of EcoCute in Japan.''' EcoCute is not one company’s products, all mfg./vender, equally competing in market with named EcoCute, product type of Air source heat pump, as article said, to identify, not confused with other type of Air source heat pump by both seller and customer. I would like all you here to review for my long opinions on other page/section.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a registered trademark. Whether they are manufactured directly by that company or under license from that company is a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of companies produce variety number of models, size, performance and sell/buy price and others. Minimum requirement is both Refrigerant is CO₂ and making hot water, it is named as EcoCute in fair markets. Telling/ display/ indication of word EcoCute in sales promotion is no advantage, it just shows merely type of heat pump, not such as gas nor electric heating.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some other companies and/or variety of products put on market in future, and is comparable or superior, than or equal capability to EcoCute reduce CO₂/ emission and Greenhouse gas, that will be a time to merge these as one type of heat pump in Air source heat pump sections.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and specifically Do not merge. Either it is notable enough for a standalone article or it isn't, and if it isn't it definitely should not be dumped into a general article - Wikipedia isn't a catalog, we should not be writing about individual product offerings in generic articles like that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Top wording changed/edited today. As (The EcoCute is an energy-efficient, type of Air source heat pump and only for water heating as the single hot water supply system, not use for air conditioning or alike.) Millions units sold EcoCute use Air source heat pump, air conditioner use Air source heat pump as well, Refrigerator use Heat pump. Car use Engine. Even trade mark Coca-Cola and Jeep, all these has an article on Wikipedia here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]