This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Technology|sig=~~~~}} 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.
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:
People could not agree whether AACS encryption key controversy should be merged. However, in the AfD for that article, there was a good suggestion to merge this page and that one. I would agree that this is even more obviously an WP:OVERLAP to the controversy page than that page is to the encryption method. The Free Speech Flag is intrinsically related to the "09 F9" movement and was spread purely in response to it. Based on WP:MERGECON and WP:OVERLAP, as well as the short length of the target page and the fact that a large chunk of this page reiterates the content of the controversy page, it would be more helpful for readers if this was merged into it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Indoor tanning because there isn't a need for this stand alone article and there is more likelihood it will then be improved. Rwood128 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
MoveElectric bath (electrotherapy) here as the primary topic with hatnote disambiguating Electric light bath, with a link to tanning bed and the album title. Merge any useful content here into Indoor tanning. Jahaza (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article created and maintained by multiple SPAs (many of them blocked for spamming) with little significant edit done by other users. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 15:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to relevant parent and save content. Destruction of information needs to be our very last resort and never taken lightly. — VPP (t/c) 16:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Who created or maintained an article isn't a reason to delete it; the question is whether the company meets WP:NCORP, and it clearly does. There is in-depth independent coverage going back years before the IBM deal: John Markoff's piece in The New York Times ("Securing data by scattering the pieces", August 2006) is almost entirely about Cleversafe and its dispersal technology, and The Register published a long analysis of the company's history, funding and customers in March 2014 (Chris Mellor, "How much data must you have before you need Cleversafe?"). Crain's Chicago Business, the Chicago Tribune and Fortune covered it again from 2014 to 2016, most of it already cited in the article. The promotional wording is a real problem, but that is a matter for cleanup, not deletion (WP:ATD-E, WP:NOTCLEANUP). A redirect to IBM Cloud Object Storage would lose the history of a company that was notable well before IBM bought it. Serindaly (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
For ease of verification, since these sources are very imprecisely cited: Nytimes, The Register. The rest of this comment doesn't provide enough bibliographic info to know what sources it is talking about. I'll refrain from making any other comments on the merits because, while I acknowledge Wikipedia rules do say otherwise, I think "company article subject to spam with no interest from the community in maintaining it" should be a reason for deletion by itself, as should "article created by account later blocked for undisclosed paid editing". * Pppery *it has begun... 02:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
And IBM Cloud Object Storage is a redirect here, so discussing a redirect there makes no sense. I really want to delete this, but my reasons for doing so aren't convincing by Wikipedia's standards. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Well, to comment, an article created in a block evasion is a great reason for deletion, it actually makes our decision here easy... Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Draftify: There are hints of notability, before the company was acquired by IBM, with the sources provided. But this version of the article isn't ready for prime time, yet. Needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
All eleven sources and additional ones like the LA Times provide solely routine coverage not WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, e.g. funding announcements (TechCrunch 2021 and 2025, The Robot Report, Tech Funding News), partnerships and expansions news based on company press-releases similar to churnalism issues (TechCrunch on Segway, The Verge on DoorDash, Axios Chicago), a PR Newswire release, a CB Insights database link. Nothing here or online provides independent, in-depth coverage of the company itself, so Coco Robotics fails WP:NCORP. Notarzan (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, while there is lots of passing mention of the subject of this AfD, including the Octrober lawsuit against in in Illinois, none of it passes WP:GNG, or has it meet WP:NCORP. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON for the subject of this AfD to be notable; recreate at some future date when it meets GNG or NCORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including interviews, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I don't think these sources are routine. The Electronic Times ran a full profile of Jenik in 2015, Maeil Business Newspaper covered him in 2023, and Globes reported on his company turning down an offer from Symantec in 2003. Edaily1, Edaily2 published a reporter-written profile of Jenik in 2013 and covered his venture fund in 2023. These are major newspapers in South Korea and Israel, and together they cover him over about 20 years. Sources in other languages count the same as English ones (WP:NONENG), so I believe he meets WP:GNG. Vogus banch (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
This article just went through the Afd process in January 2026 and the consensus was delete. I searched for new sources and there has not been enough independent WP:SIGCOV to warrant a new decision in my opinion. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging these articles because The protocol and the app are both discontinued and it would be better for historical purposes if the information about the two was in one article. The Skype protocol article is quite short as well. - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Previously declined WP:PROD. The deletion rationale was "Article contains no sources that contribute substantially to notability. All references are interviews or trivial coverage about the platform's funding rounds. Searches revealed only blogs and press releases about routine business transactions." The PROD template was removed by User:Lorteft with edit summary "there are a few case studies, which I will add": I have since requested that they add these or clarify on the article talk page what these case studies are and how they contribute to notability with no response in several weeks. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I think there is more than funding news. Bloomberg wrote about the company in 2020 and 2026 . Turkish newspapers also covered it independently, for example Milliyet about an outage in 2023 and Dünya about fines from the Capital Markets Board in 2026 . These are not press releases. Nameless.world (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet.
The 2020 and 2026 articles from Bloomberg heavily rely on quotes from interviews of the company's founders, and another from 2025 is just talking about the company's valuation being especially high. The Dünya article is extremely short, has no byline, and is basically a record of business transactions with no analysis. The Milliyet article seems reasonable. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. A few points: the 2020 Bloomberg piece is not only based on the founders – it also quotes Berra Doğaner, a 37-year industry veteran on the board of Piramit Securities, who assesses the company's cost structure and business model. Beyond Milliyet, there is an Ekonomi Gazetesi column by Kerem Özdemir (May 2026) with the author's own commentary on the company , and an Endeks24 article by its editor-in-chief (June 2026) analysing the company's regulatory record . Nameless.world (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: while I have no opinion on the actual article itself or the notability of the subject, this should be (not during the AfD, of course) renamed as the current title is an incomplete disambiguation. Midas (disambiguation)#Companies and transport lists three companies (none of which are even this one), and the current title should redirect to there regardless of whether or not the Turkish financial technology company's article is retained–it's hard to imagine this is of sufficient prominence to have such unspecific disambiguation. (When I first saw the title, I thought the subject that is actually at Midas (automotive service)–the company that is the most prominent entity with the name in the US–had come to AfD!) But again, none of this has any relevance to the notability of the Turkish company, of which I have no opinion. WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Most current citations are funding news or interviews but WP:NEXIST is about what sources exist and independent in-depth coverage does exist: a long Forbes Turkiye profile with its own analysis of Midas's market position and its effect on Turkish brokerages , plus coverage in Milliyet and Endeks24 . Together these meet WP:SIRS. The article's reliance on funding news is a surmountable problem, not a reason to delete. Trumimeko (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet.
Can I ask if you have ever edited Wikipedia before or if you have used AI to structure or write this response? It is unusual to see someone with an account that was created just today deciding to contribute to a deletion discussion, citing sections of the notability guidelines. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I would also ask the same of @Nameless.world whose account was created yesterday. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Fair question. I’m pretty new here. I use Midas app, ended up on this page while reading about the company, and thought I’d chip in. I found the sources by googling around, but I did read through them myself. And no, I don’t know the other new account. Understandable given I’m new, but I’d hope the sources can be judged on their own merits. Nameless.world (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to 3G for several reasons. (1) It hasn't been deemed necessary to have adoption articles for any other generation of the technology. (2) The article gives as little as one sentence to many of the countries it touches upon, adding little value to Wikipedia and following that (3) the article's meaningful details not already listed in the 3G article could easily be added with very little additional words needed. The Voivodeship King (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 01:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Kana Software because its own article appears to be written for the purpose of advertisement and is primarily sourced by press releases, with two sources failing to verify. Searching for sources didn't reveal anything supporting independent notability. Coverage was mostly about the acquisition. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Kana Software but to be honest, I don't believe Kana Software meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability either. One step at a time though. HighKing++ 13:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article has no references, and from what I can tell it has been unreferenced since it was created. I was unable to find any sources that satisfy WP:GNG. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – unsourced since creation (WP:V, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy: I think this can be moved to draft space to add proper sources or an editor can work on it now to add some, this seems like a useful article to be simply deleted for lack of sources. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - I have added two sources to improve the article for now. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is too old to draftify. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I updated the tag. No opinion about the subject itself. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Archive file as an WP:ATD. Apparently, the subject is mostly discussed in the context of archiving. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 23:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose draftifying because the current article reads like a dictionary and as it pertains to fiberoptics and electromagnetics, it appears non-notable and only cites one source. However, I think as it pertains to sports such as golf and baseball it may actually be notable, though it will need work which I can take care of. This is also what the majority of the online articles referencing launch angles are talking about. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: My first instinct is that it looks like a DAB page. WP:DAB says [...] there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. I did find a few academic papers (and the Standard cited on the page, of course) using the term in the optics context, so it's not unreasonable that a person can search for them.
That's a good point, although it'd be good have some more secondary sources if possible. I'll support that as long as the sourcing is adequate for a separate article. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
A properly dab-ified version of this page could link to Glossary of baseball terms#launch angle, at least for now - I haven't thought about it before, but I'd guess there would be enough sourcing out there for someone to write a full article on it, or at least an expanded section in Statcast. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps for now we redirect to the glossary, and maybe get a Launch angle (projectile motion) started rotting in Draft namespace, and if it gets up to publishable, we turn the redirect into a DAB. With regards to putting that sourcing somewhere, we could write an expanded section of Statcast (and if it gets too big we split it off), but I'm worried that would fit in awkwardly with the current article layout. If we can't figure out where it'd go, we could draftify that too, perhaps. I also think if the sourcing is sparser than I hope (which, alas, seems to be the case often), I could still thicken out that definition in the glossary a little, because it's looking short even with regards to other entries on the page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment We do not need sourcing for dab pages, and this in effect is a dab page. But so far the term is not mentioned in optics pages. Oppose draftification as too old, also not in favor of a redirect as the term is used outside of a sports context. So if not fixed, delete. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Can this not be solved by simply adding that sourcing and definition to the optics page? I'll admit I haven't actually looked past the page / proposal, the former of which appears pretty cleanly to have been intended as a DAB, but if the sourcing is correct then it's an extremely simple fix, so I don't see why we're looking at deletion as a necessary failsafe.
It wasn't intended as anything. In the early days of Wikipedia editors imported a public domain telecommunications glossary (it's referenced at the bottom of the article). This gave us a jump start on article creation: a couple thousand stub articles that hyperlinked to each other. Over time most of those stubs were either expanded or merged. This one didn't go anywhere, partly because there are several different definitions of the term. --Srleffler (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about what to do.--Srleffler (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Same honestly. Technically, per WP:SPEEDY, if we consider it a DAB, it should be redirected to the sports term glossary. However, I agree with Kelob2678 it doesn't really qualify as the primary topic. Is it possible we could merge the optics section into another article (e.x Glossary of physics, however that glossary currently only contains other articles) and then make it a working DAB? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – a dictionary-length entry with no sources (WP:V, WP:DICDEF). Kukuryza (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Sourcing is not at issue. All of it is sourced to Federal Standard 1037C, as indicated at the bottom of the page.--Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
There are also a number of sources available for the baseball-specific version. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Support draftifying since the article is basically just a definition at this point, and doesn't have a reliable and independent source. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
The entire article except the baseball reference is sourced to Federal Standard 1037C, which is a reliable and independent source.--Srleffler (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Soft redirect to wikt:launch angle per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, where definitions from other contexts can be appropriately added. Searching Google Scholar, it's trivial to find various examples of this phrase being used to refer to the angle of departure from origin for a projectile or beam in many different contexts. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 21:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
