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

MyPhone myA18

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

No evidence of notability for this smartphone. I found pieces like this and this, but I think we would need a lot better sourcing to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these 2 links should always be the same, but google search always finding me for shopping JGBlue1509 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your argument. JTtheOG (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to MyPhone per WP:ATD-R. Unnotable smartphone model. Most of the sources you can find online are from tech blogs. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge. this is not reliable, so it will be merged or redirected to the article MyPhone @AstrooKai JGBlue1509 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I will change my verdict. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MicroStrategy hack incident of 2024

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

Non-notable 'hack' event that fails WP:GNG with no lasting effect or widespread impact. YouTuber himself currently has open AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Brea). Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Non-notable, unremarkable, unimportant event. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These 'hacks' (or for most, disregarding the longtime advice not to click on attachments in email ever) have become WP:MILL for YouTubers to the point it occurs daily, and nothing about this certain incident is unique at all. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of portable media players

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

Previously PROD'd with this rationale: Out of date article, tagged as such for over 14 years, not revised substantially in years, and full of information with no verifiable importance or correctness. WP:NOTGUIDE suggests that Wikipedia is not a guide for consumer product information. Restored to draft on request, then moved to main article space with no changes. I concur with the PROD rationale that this article is not within the bounds of Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is almost two decades out of date; if no one is looking after the list despite the maintenance tags, delete this and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I’m a little dubious of the PROD rationale, because I’m not totally convinced that WP: NOTGUIDE applies here. The article doesn’t describe, for example, how to use a portable media player (which would violate WP: NOTGUIDE). That being said, this is a massive mess of information that seems to overwhelmingly come from primary sources. My concern is that this violates WP: INDISCRIMINATE and cleaning it up would amount to rewriting the article from scratch. At best, we should WP: STARTOVER; at worst, this violates WP: INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no plausible way this could be a useful article with the proliferation of portable music players. Brandon (talk)
Delete, as the person who proposed deletion a few weeks ago. This giant, table-filled article is badly out of date and light on citations. No amount of editing would make this into a suitable Wikipedia article. White 720 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaNaDr

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article was deleted at AFD a year ago. The present article was created a few months ago, covering recent action against the firm by the Singapore Ministry of Health. Searches find this Straits Times item concerning other providers' reactions to that situations (and perhaps Healthcare_in_Singapore#Private_healthcare should be extended to cover telehealth). However WP:CORP indicates that regulatory actions and their coverage are not in themselves indicative of notability of a particular firm, so it seems appropriate to bring this to AFD as it doesn't seem there is enough in-depth coverage to overturn the previous deletion consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Singapore. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Agree with the nominator. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Shalabh Gupta

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBLP.
Sources provided (in order):

(1): Business Daily: A puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(2): Mifeed: The title says “Blazing Trails In Biotech”, need I say more? Same as above. Published in the same week as the above source and another puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(3): Company website: Primary source, as this is the company's own site. Self-published content.
(4): LA Harbor News: I am unable to visit the site and therefore cannot vet this. My browser tells me this is an unsafe site. Visit at your own direction.
(5): Founders Network: This is another primary source, as it is self-published. Details are taken from an event hosted via EventBrite here.

Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Medicine, Technology, Uttar Pradesh, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abayima

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge with Jon Gosier: Plenty of sources, but no sustained coverage. All the coverage is in the context of their "Open SIM Kit" after they got funding from the Knight News Challenge in January 2013, but it seems like the project fizzled out pretty quickly. Most coverage is from January. The latest source I could find was from August 2013. This source is a trade publication, which should be given less weight due to WP:TRADES. Their GitHub repo was last updated in September 2013. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete : Fails WP:ORG and lacks SIGCOV.Gauravs 51 (talk)

HiveColab

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Under Hive Colab there are multiple sources that support notability, see New Vision, Independent, AsiaTechDaily, Nile Post, Pctechmag, and BBC FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple sources but after looking at them, I do not feel comfortable using these to establish notability. My initial comment is the article is about HiveColab while the focus on a lot of these articles is about YSAU (Youth Startup Academy Uganda) which is one of the accelerator programs under it. Per WP:NOTINHERITED while they are related, we cannot use the program alone to cover for the organization above it and HiveColab should be able to stand by itself. Also something irking me is how promotional the whole thing seems. I see mention of co-founder Barbara Birungi and judging by the state of her article, it feels like there is some PR campaign being held for her (and possibly her firm) on the internet. Anyway:
  - New Vision: There seems to be a related press release for this here. This is reporting on a ceremony for YSAU, a program under Hive Collab rather than Hive Collab itself. Half of it are just promotional quotes by related parties. If you look at the remaining content, most of it looks very similar to the press release. Edit: ITC states it is involved in implementing YSAU so it’s a related party. The press release from Hive Collab is here which has similar wording content.
  - Independent: First thing I noticed is this article is not authored to an individual. There's another site with the exact same content here so I’m wondering if this is just a form of a press release. The focus is on Ugandan startups signing deals at Gitex in Morocco. The focus is not on Hive Collab but the entrepreneurs under it. The latter half of the article can be ignored since not about Hive Collab. So taking out the quotes, its pretty much a non-notable entity named Dain Leaders Corporation signing an MOU with Hive Collab and the supposed benefits in a press release manner.
  - AsiaTechDaily: Non-notable entity GCCEI signs an MOU with Hive Collab. That's kinda it. While it is authored, it seems like a regurgitated press release of a routine deal given how short it is and the language used.
  - NilePost: This one does seem to be more than a press release (I think). But in my view looking at it, the main focus is on YSAU companies attending Gitex in Morocco with a chance to show themselves. There doesn’t seem to be much analysis on Hive Collab itself. Edit: Here is the original press release, the 15 YSAU startups are directly copied so the source is now much weaker.
  - PC Tech: There seems to be a related press release (or update as called) for this here. This article is not authored to an individual. Another ceremony of people from YSAU graduating. Large chunks of it are just kinda copied from the press release.
  - BBC: Very brief mention of Hive Collab and in fact seems to be more on Barbara Birungi herself.
- So looking at all of them, they fail WP:SIRS in my view. To save time just give the best three independent in-depth sources going forward. - Imcdc Contact 05:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You should be clear when you say a press release to indicate how did you come to that conclusion.
  
  All of what you labelled as a “press release” is either not a press release by the organisation, see New Vision or is not one at all, see Nile Post. And I am not sure who did you dismiss the mention by the BBC. This organisation is not in Global West, it is in Uganda and still mentioned by the BBC. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  FYI, I have updated the above analysis.
  
  See WP:PRSOURCE. A press release doesn’t need to directly come from Hive Colab. It can come from an affiliated party. We know ITC is affiliated because it itself says the YSAU is implemented by ITC, Hive Collab and several other parties. So no independence there. WP:PRSOURCE also mentions how less reputable news sources will write an article based on a press release which we are seeing here in examples of churnalism. Btw I have found some of the press releases by Hive Collab and updated above based on it. For example we can see now that Nile Post has indeed copied a chunk out of a press release.- Imcdc Contact 12:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention in books:
- The Bright Continent published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Digital Divides published by Taylor & Francis.
- Innovate for agriculture published by CTA.
- Empowering African Women Entrepreneurs in the Fashion Industry published by Springer International.
- Citizen-Driven Innovation published by the World Bank.
- UNESCO Science Report published by UNESCO.
- Disruptive Technologies, Innovation and Development in Africa published by Springer International.
- Africa’s Development Dynamics 2021 published by the African Union.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if its because Google Books is cutting off my access to see the whole thing, but almost everything seems to be a very short mention. A lof seem to be just something like this: ilab (Liberia), Hive Collab (Uganda), Etrilabs (Benin)... and thats it. The only one that offers more is the UNESCO one. But its just one short section giving very general (and sort of generic) description of Hive Collab. I don't think this is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV for an WP:NCORP subject. Imcdc Contact 11:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alef (company)

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

DELETE — Failure to meet WP:GNG; insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and the ones that have been mentioned make no mention of Alef. The company seems to have no notability whatsoever at the moment. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems as though this was rejected multiple times in AfC: Draft:Alef (company) Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has completely improved every problem it had before Manikingr (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP at this time. It is a little difficult to find other sources as I don't speak Persian, and alef is a character in the Perso-Arabic script so it's not a very useful search term. However, when I reviewed it for AfC I went through the various sources added to the draft at different points, and couldn't find any in-depth independent or secondary coverage in spite of the draft creator's repeated attempts to improve the sourcing. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putra Adhiguna

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this BLP. The 15 sources cited in the article are author listings, biography listings, interviews, articles written by the subject, alumni listings, coverage from events, seminars, conferences, summits and more interviews. It is unclear what makes the subject notable or what their contributions are which could be used to assess whether any SNG is met. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Economics, Technology, Asia, and Indonesia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV in the sources. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, this below is planned to be add to outline his contribution to the energy transition field. Look forward to your advice whether this will be sufficiently relevant. Thank you.

Putra has made notable contributions to research on Southeast Asia's energy transition. His research expertise spans various aspects of the energy transition, including in outlining the key enablers and challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology application (1), critical transition minerals sourcing and related industrial developments (2), as well as key factors to drive Indonesia’s energy transition (3)(4).

His perspectives on the energy sector have been regularly featured in major news outlets in the region, covering wide-ranging topics in energy such as gas investments in Southeast Asia (5), Singapore’s clean energy imports (6), and regional green energy cooperation in ASEAN (7).

His research works have also been cited in publications such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) report on Enhancing Indonesia’s Power System (8), RAND Corporation report on China’s Role in the Global Development of Critical Resources (9) and an article in Communications Earth & Environment journal (A part of Nature journal) titled The viability of co-firing biomass waste to mitigate coal plant emissions in Indonesia (10)

He was part of the team of international peer reviewers for the IEA report titled An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia (11) and his insights and contribution has been acknowledged in International Institute for Sustainable Development publication titled Boom and Bust: The fiscal implications of fossil fuel phase-out in six large emerging economies (12)

(1) https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-southeast-asian-market-context-sorting-out-myths-and-realities-cost

(2) https://energyshift.institute/work/0-4-of-global-battery-production-capacity-indonesias-battery-and-ev-developments-are-far-out-of-step-with-its-nickel-exploitation-promise/

(3) https://ieefa.org/resources/indonesia-wants-go-greener-pln-stuck-excess-capacity-coal-fired-power-plants

(4) https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Indonesias-Biomass-Cofiring-Bet_February-2021.pdf

(5) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/gas-investments-in-se-asia-undermine-green-energy-climate-push-report

(6) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/st-explains-s-pore-announced-more-ambitious-clean-import-targets-what-would-this-mean-for-our-energy-transition

(7) https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/583121

(8) https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/247b5328-2cd7-4fbb-a800-dd1c71f6e562/EnhancingIndonesiasPowerSystem.pdf

(9) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2000/RRA2096-1/RAND_RRA2096-1.pdf

(10) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01588-0

(11) https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-net-zero-emissions-in-indonesia

(12) https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-07/fossil-fuel-phase-out-briics-economies.pdf

**Viewpoints and research

*Carbon Capture and Storage*

Putra’s view on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is that it will not be easily deployed in cost-sensitive regions such as Southeast Asia (13). However, more affluent countries, such as Singapore or Japan, might be interested in exporting their carbon dioxide emissions to countries that can provide storage locations (14). Nevertheless, he advocated that such export activities will require stringent standards with clear long term liability agreements (15) (16).

(13) https://ieefa.org/articles/widespread-adoption-carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-technologies-south-east-asia

(14) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-japan-sign-agreement-to-collaborate-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-tech

(15) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-cannot-make-CO2-disappear-just-by-exporting-it

(16) https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2024/05/27/new-rules-set-to-kick-start-japanese-co2-exports-to-ri.html

*Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition*

His research on critical minerals primarily focused on nickel development and the battery and electric vehicle industry (2). He has advocated for more ambitious industrial developments to further enhance the role of producing countries in the battery and electric vehicle value chain (2).

Putra has also raised significant concerns about the low social and environmental standards of nickel development in Indonesia, including its implications for indigenous populations (17) and the potential use of forced labour (18). He has urged the government to conduct transparent assessments and implement improvements in these areas, as he outlined in his interviews with BBC News and Voice of America (17) (18).

(17) https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/c1e5x2k7kp8o

(18) https://www.voaindonesia.com/a/amerika-serikat-masukkan-nikel-indonesia-ke-daftar-pekerja-paksa-/7816453.html

His expertise on critical minerals in Southeast Asia is evident from his interviews featured in prominent international publications such as The New York Times (19), Barron’s (20), NPR (21), The Straits Times (22), Channel News Asia (23) and Bloomberg news (24)

(19) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/business/indonesia-nickel-china-us.html

(20) https://www.barrons.com/news/indonesia-bets-on-se-asia-s-first-battery-plant-to-become-ev-hub-8328fe72

(21) https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1231061492/a-leading-candidate-for-president-in-indonesia-wants-the-country-to-increase-coa

(22) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-set-to-become-ev-battery-battleground

(23) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/indonesias-industrialisation-has-fallen-short-its-regional-peers-analyst-4122381

(24) https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/10/17/indonesias-fixer-in-chief-bows-out-as-prabowo-takes-the-helm/

*Trump election, China and Southeast Asia’s Energy Transition*

With the recent election of Trump as President of the United States, Putra has shared his views on its impact toward the Southeast Asia’s energy transition in Asia's prominent news outlet, Nikkei Asia. According to him, Trump's withdrawal from international climate agreements will have a notable impact on climate diplomacy in Southeast Asia's energy transition, although its effect on energy investments in the region will likely remain limited. (25)

In separate publications featured in China's major news outlets, Caixin and China Daily, he argued that Trump's rise to power would likely create a larger role for China in Southeast Asia's energy transition (26) (27). Major Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia, stand to benefit significantly from increased engagement with China due to its capacity for rapid investment deployment. However, raising the standards of Chinese overseas investments remains essential. (27) Prior, he has also commented on Xinhua News how China’s coal provinces and their rapid industrial development toward clean energy can also provide inspirations for coal reliant economies to transition to greener industries (28)

(25) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-Trump-might-shake-up-Southeast-Asia-s-clean-energy-transition

(26) https://www.caixinglobal.com/2024-12-06/commentary-will-a-trump-presidency-give-china-a-bigger-role-in-southeast-asias-energy-transition-102265317.html

(27) https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/10/WS67579329a310f1265a1d1fb0.html

(28) https://english.news.cn/20240917/b74ec11d54c244978a5b866ba286716f/c.html

*Indonesia’s energy Transition*

Putra has also been a notable voice in outlining the key enablers and challenges in Indonesia’s energy transition. This includes highlighting the considerations for the use of biomass to generate electricity on Reuters (29) and International Monetary Fund Finance & Development Magazine (30). He has also shared his views on Indonesia’s role in the climate and energy transition in international events held by the University of Maryland (31) in College Park and United States - Indonesia Society in Washington DC (32).

His views on the use of biomass and nuclear energy in Indonesia has been featured in Channel News Asia’s feature documentary titled “Power to the People – Bioenergy” (33) and “Insight - Will Indonesia Go Nuclear” (34).

His work while at IEEFA covering the plan for the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for Indonesia’s power generation (35) has been cited by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission report on its Corruption Vulnerability Assessment (Kajian kerentanan korupsi) (36).

He has also advocated the need to transition to greener energy in the islands of the archipelago, as outlined in an Associated Press article (34). Putra has also emphasized the need to optimize international assistance such as the $20 billion funding by U.S. and its allies (35) and anticipate energy consumption growth and emissions in new sectors such as the data centres (36).

(29) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/feature-betting-on-bamboo-indonesian-villages-struggle-to-source-safe-green-po-idUSL8N2LU4I6/

(30) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/country-case-indonesia-solar-future-jacques

(31) https://cgs.umd.edu/events/indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance-open-forum-discussion

(32) https://usindo.org/feature/special-open-forum-discussion-on-indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance/

(33) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/power-people/bioenergy-4439271

(34) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/insight-2022-2023/will-indonesia-go-nuclear-3029031

(35) https://www.kpk.go.id/id/publikasi-data/kajian/kerentanan-korupsi-program-gasifikasi-pembangkit-listrik-pt-pln

(36) https://apnews.com/article/business-indonesia-g-20-summit-bali-climate-and-environment-a73dcbcb60d9a42904f7d81025b5feac

(37) https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-allies-announce-20-billion-package-to-wean-indonesia-off-coal-11668503675

(38) https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3235499/dark-clouds-ahead-indonesias-emissions-surge-asias-need-data-centres-singapores-offshore-push 222.124.125.10 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to see at least a partial review of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think they might meet criteria 7 of WP:NPROF. NPROF applies to anyone involved in scholarly research, so I think Adhiguna's roles at policy research think tanks qualify them to be considered under NPROF. Criteria 7 is that the subject must have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", and it notes that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may qualify. Adhiguna is clearly very widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition, including in publications like the NYT, BBC and WSJ. They also seem to have had a significant impact outside of academia by using their scholarly research to inform Indonesian policymaking, including contributing to some influential reports like the IEA one and being a regular columnist on the energy transition for one of Indonesia's largest newspapers. I agree that they definitely don't meet WP:GNG, but I think they make a reasonable case under criteria 7 of WP:NPROF as an influential subject-matter expert. MCE89 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list their 'substantial impact' and explain how they are 'very widely quoted as an expert' after you have actually read the articles from the NYT, BBC and WSJ? Also, please clarify how you determined that these quotes have meaningful impact? I believe they are merely routine/run of the mill statements. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read the articles. I'm not sure what you mean by routine/run of the mill statements - they are pretty clearly being quoted by each of these publications in their capacity as a subject matter expert, which is exactly what is described under 7(a) of WP:NPROF. As I said, I'm not claiming that any of these articles constitute SIGCOV or that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as someone engaged in "scholarly research" all that needs to be established is that they meet one of the seven criteria under NPROF. I think the most applicable criteria is that they have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which may be satisfied if they are "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (note "quoted" - I'm aware that they are not a major focus of any of the articles, but they are certainly widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition). So the reason I think they meet criteria 7 is that (a) they have been widely quoted in prominent international media outlets, including the WSJ, NYT, BBC, Reuters etc., as an expert in their area of research, satisfying 7(a) of NPROF, and (b) they have clearly influenced Indonesian policymaking in their area of research, as demonstrated by being cited or consulted on various government projects and publications. MCE89 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, TLDR: you actually don’t have anything meaningful or substantial to show from the NYT, BBC or WSJ articles? Instead, you’ve decided to explain NPROF#7 to me. Fascinating, but I’m still waiting for evidence of this so called ‘significant impact’.

Let's take the NYT example: Putra Adhiguna says “One way or another, Europe and the U.S. will need Indonesia nickel" and "They should be coming to this country figuring out how they can do it better." This is just a routine interview byte as he was part of Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.. They almost always comment on everything and that’s why this falls under routine coverage.

The entire article reads like a collection of his viewpoints and arguments - Putra Adhiguna emphasized this, Putra Adhiguna shared his views on that, Putra Adhiguna argued this, Putra Adhiguna commented on that - just a series of views, emphasizes, comments and arguments. Yet, there’s nothing about the work he has done or his achievements, because there aren’t any. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe tone it down a bit? My point was just that all of those articles are very standard examples of what it looks like when an expert in a particular field is quoted in the mainstream press about their area of expertise, which is exactly what 7(a) describes. Yes, it's a routine interview bite, but that's what "quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" is describing. I'm not claiming that any of these sources are SIGCOV of Putra Adhiguna, but that's not what's required - NPROF specifically says that researchers may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". It seems like you're applying the GNG standard and asking for secondary SIGCOV of the work he has done and his achievements, but I don't think NPROF requires that at all. What I'm saying is that the fact that he is a public-facing expert who frequently comments in the international press, writes for major Indonesian newspapers and seems to have some measurable influence on policymaking processes in Indonesia is enough to show that he is "notably influential in the world of ideas" per NPROF, even without the secondary SIGCOV that would be needed to meet GNG.

We're in agreement about the absence of SIGCOV though and I don't think this is particularly productive, so let's maybe leave it there? MCE89 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without concrete examples of specific policies shaped by his work or recognition within academic or policy circles, it’s hard to see how his routine media mentions meet the bar set by NPROF. It seems more like he was quoted in conventional media as a person working for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis rather than as an academic expert. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Datamatics

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject does not seem notable and lacks news coverage from independent reliable sources. Mysecretgarden (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2024 (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 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Google search brings up many other news articles about them. They are an Indian public company. We can't also just assume all Indians publications are bad. Here are some of the other articles I have found: 1, 2, 3, 4. Shinadamina (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinadamina only link number 3 makes partial sense but still it fails because of CORPTRIV, as it focuses on changes in share price. Please provide a SIRS table. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a good example of a SIRS table in this AfD, which you can easily create by using the following Template:Source assess table. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet notability guidelines, as it lacks sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to establish the company's significance. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[1] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[2] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[3] is not independent
[4] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[5] is a copy of a press release
[6] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[7] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[8] copy of a press release
[9] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[10] Summary of a press release
[11] Summary of a press release
[12] Summary of a press release
[13] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]