mic_none

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Technology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

[edit]

FASTCAM Ultima 512

[edit]
FASTCAM Ultima 512 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced / only primary sources if deadlines rescued. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Ultima 40K

[edit]
FASTCAM Ultima 40K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced / only primary sources if deadlines rescued. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Super 10K

[edit]
FASTCAM Super 10K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Spectra

[edit]
FASTCAM Spectra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM SE

[edit]
FASTCAM SE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Can't find much online about it. Might be best to merge into Photron. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump

[edit]
Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything that gets headlines for one or two days should be turned into an article. Wait to create an article on stuff like this until there is clear WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage. Fram (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace. I think move this to draftspace until more is known. Dflovett (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own Technology

[edit]
On My Own Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NORG doesn't pass, no sigcov in article, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner alignment

[edit]
Inner alignment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not currently cite reliable sources. Current citations include the forums "LessWrong" and "AI Alignment Forum", and blog articles on "AISafety.info", Medium, and LinkedIn. A web search turned up the following primary source articles:

I am recommending this article for deletion since I could find no references to this concept in reliable secondary sources. Elestrophe (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This concept seems to exist and be a confounding factor in artificial intelligence spaces, and therefore has some value to the overall encyclopedia. Because AI is advancing at such a rate, and because such advancements raise challenges faster than scientific study of those challenges can be adequately conducted, I would argue that there is some limited room for article creation before full adequate sourcing exists. There is a fine line between what I am talking about and a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOR; but I would raise that it is better to have an article in this case than not have an article. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating an article "before full adequate sourcing exists" is a violation of the No Original Research policy, full stop. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a notable concept. I just added a reference to the article from Scientific Reports. A Google Scholar search for "inner alignment" artificial intelligence turns up 300+ results. Many are preprints but there remain many peer-reviewed papers and books. Books, too. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scientific Reports is not a good journal. It's the cash-grab of the Nature company. The majority of Wikipedia's own article about it is the "Controversies" section, for goodness sake. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The version has been improved and the concept itself is notable and increasingly discussed in the academic literature. The notion of “inner alignment” is widely cited in alignment research and has been already formalized. While the original discussions emerged on platforms like the AI Alignment Forum and LessWrong, the term has since migrated into peer-reviewed academic publications. Southernhemisphere (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the absence of actual serious literature, i.e., multiple reliably-published articles that cover the topic in depth, this is just an advertisement for an ideology. The current sourcing is dreadful, running the gamut from LessWrong to LinkedIn, and a search for better options did not turn up nearly enough to indicate that this needs an article rather than, at most, a sentence somewhere else. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LessWrong and LinkedIn referenced texts were deleted. While the article requires further refinement, the topic remains highly relevant. Southernhemisphere (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now remove "aisafety.info" (a primary, non-independent source with no editorial standards that can be discerned). And "Bluedot Impact" (likewise). And the blog post about a podcast episode on Medium, which fails every test one could want for a source good enough to build an encyclopedia article upon. What's left? Not much. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting by what is in the article today vs what is out there is not how it works. Poorly or incompletely written is not grounds to delete. Google this: "Inner alignment" artificial intelligence. Lots of stuff if we but look: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Exists and is notable, and newer sciences, so you have to dig more. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first link is to the arXiv preprint version of a conference proceedings paper in a conference with unknown standards. The lead author was at OpenAI, which means that the paper has to be judged for the possibility of criti-hype, and in any event, should be regarded as primary and not independent. The second is a page of search results from a search engine that does not screen for peer review and even includes a self-published book. The third is in Scientific Reports, which via this essay I learned has published crackpot physics. The fifth is a thesis, which is generally not a good kind of source to use. In short, there is much less here than meets the eye. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that a doctoral thesis is an allowable reliable source. However hinging an article like this on a single source is not appropriate. This is why I proposed draftification. This topic could very well be one that generates reliable sources but it's clearly not there yet. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source that looks halfway like credible computer science is a wildly speculative pre-print from 2024 sponsored by Google and Microsoft. The article looks like covert advertising for AIsafety.info. Jujodon (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. If reliable academic sources come forward then this article then that's fine but preprints and blogs are not reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify. Is there a single RS for this? Perhaps we could move the article to arXiv too, or maybe viXra - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Inner alignment is a notable and emerging concept in AI safety, now cited in peer-reviewed sources such as Scientific Reports (Melo et al., 2025) and PRAI 2024 (Li et al.). While the article began with less formal sources, newer academic literature confirms its relevance. Per WP:GNG, the topic has significant coverage in reliable sources. Improvements are ongoing, and deletion would be premature for a concept gaining scholarly traction. Sebasargent (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — Sebasargent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I have just removed the many paragraphs cited solely to blog posts, arXiv preprints, Medium posts, some guy's website, or nothing at all. This is now a three-paragraph article with two cites. Is that really all there is to this? Nothing else in a solid RS? - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article should be fixed and enhanced, not deleted. Inner alignment is crucial to preventing both existential risks and suffering risks. Misaligned AI systems may pursue unintended goals, leading to human extinction or vast suffering. Ensuring AI internal goals match human values is key to avoiding catastrophic outcomes as AI systems become more capable and autonomous. Southernhemisphere (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you seriously claim that LLMs will lead to the end of humanity, then this sounds like the topic is squarely within the purview of WP:FRINGE. This puts upon it strong RS requirements. Right now it has two RSes, one of those the topic is merely a passing mention in a footnote. Given this, you really, really need more solid sourcing. I just posted a call on WP:FTN asking for good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn’t assert that LLMs will end humanity, but notes that some researchers view inner alignment as a potential contributor to AI risk. I agree that stronger secondary sources are needed and will work on adding more reliable references to reflect the seriousness of the topic neutrally. Southernhemisphere (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To speak to your point, User:David Gerard, As an expert in Emergency Management, and someone who has spent a great deal of time studying global catastrophic risk, the idea that AI could lead to the end of humanity is far from fringe science. The fact that essentially every AI company working towards AGI has a team working on Catostrophic Risk is more than enough evidence that AI poses a possible existential threat. Essentially no one on either side of the AI debate disagrees that AI poses a general catastrophic risk. They may disagree on the level of risk and everything else, but the risk is universally acknowledged to be there. - Foxtrot620 (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Every "AI" company having a team working on catastrophic risk is not significant evidence, because they would still have those teams just for hype under the null hypothesis of lack of belief in catastrophic risk. It would almost certainly fail to reject the null with p < .05, and the Bayes factor would be so small that it shouldn't convince you of anything that you don't already have very high priors for. (Which, sure, might be reasonable for some narrow statements, like companies believing actual AGI "possibly" posing existential risks. Companies believing the current marginal dollar spent on this providing more benefit to them on the "actual risk" side compared to the "attract investment and other hype" is going to be a nah from me) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to pause and reframe, because I don't think this is conveying the point I need to be heard here. While your points are valid, they don't invalidate the concerns I'm raising about AI risk. I want to present this from an emergency management perspective, my area of expertise in order to insure that it's fully understood.
discussion of the general subject of AI risk, not the article nor the specific topic
  • In emergency management, we assess risk based on three core factors: scale, likelihood, and severity. A risk is worth planning for if any two factors are high. If all three factors are high, or if the likelihood is certain, planning is essential.
    Let's illustrate this with some examples in a hypothetical Midwest US town, "Anytown," with a population of 70,000:
    Tornado:
    Likelihood: High (Midwest location).
    Scale: High (could impact the entire town).
    Severity: High (could destroy Anytown).
    Conclusion: A tornado is a critical risk to prepare for.
    Asteroid Impact:
    Likelihood: Very low.
    Scale: Variable (could be a house or the entire city), but large impacts are extremely low likelihood.
    Severity: Variable (from a ruined garden to flattening the town).
    Conclusion: Not a primary risk for Anytown to plan for due to low likelihood.
    Pandemic:
    Likelihood: Certain (history shows pandemics recur).
    Scale: High (will impact the entire town).
    Severity: Generally high if classified as a pandemic.
    Conclusion: A pandemic is an essential risk to prepare for.
    Tsunami:
    Likelihood: Essentially impossible (Anytown is landlocked).
    Conclusion: Not a risk for Anytown to plan for.
    Now, applying this established emergency management framework to AI and AGI, we have multiple companies actively developing AGI, often with questionable ethical guidelines and insufficient safeguards. While the likelihood of AGI reaching a critical stage where it poses a significant threat is currently unknown, its potential scale and severity could both be of the absolute highest level, impacting the entire globe. According to the same emergency management principles, that tell us a tornado is a threat to prepare for, so is AI. This is not fringe science; it's a direct application of widely accepted risk assessment principles.
    It's also crucial to differentiate here, as the risk isn't just with the theoretical AGI. While AGI poses a potential Global Catastrophic Risk, the issue of AI risk isn't limited to hypothetical future scenarios. AI is already demonstrating tangible risks at various levels:
    We know, indisputably, that current, AI has already contributed to loss of life. For instance, when UnitedHealthcare implemented an AI system for prior authorizations, it wrongfully denied countless claims, leading to treatment delays and, tragically, patient deaths. This wasn't AGI; it was basic AI with real-world, life-or-death consequences. While not a global risk, it was certainly a significant risk for the over 22 million patients insured by UHC. It was a national level impact from AI, and it's one that happened.
  • Comment - I have added 3 refs to the article that I got from a quick check of the Wikipedia Library:
  • Li, Kanxue; Zheng, Qi; Zhan, Yibing; Zhang, Chong; Zhang, Tianle; Lin, Xu; Qi, Chongchong; Li, Lusong; Tao, Dapeng (August 2024). "Alleviating Action Hallucination for LLM-based Embodied Agents via Inner and Outer Alignment". 2024 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence (PRAI): 613–621. doi:10.1109/PRAI62207.2024.10826957. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
  • Kilian, Kyle A.; Ventura, Christopher J.; Bailey, Mark M. (1 August 2023). "Examining the differential risk from high-level artificial intelligence and the question of control". Futures. 151: 103182. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2023.103182. ISSN 0016-3287. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
  • Hartridge, Samuel; Walker-Munro, Brendan (4 April 2025). "Autonomous Weapons Systems and the ai Alignment Problem". Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies. 16 (1). Brill | Nijhoff: 38–65. doi:10.1163/18781527-bja10107. ISSN 1878-1373. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you did not check them - the third only mentions "inner alignment" in a footnote pointing somewhere else. Please review WP:REFBOMB - David Gerard (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The third ref discusses alignment in general and is written for less technical people.
David, what's your analysis of the other two references? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The third ref is literally not about the article topic! - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Melo, Gabriel A.; Máximo, Marcos R. O. A.; Soma, Nei Y.; Castro, Paulo A. L. (4 May 2025). "Machines that halt resolve the undecidability of artificial intelligence alignment". Scientific Reports. 15 (1): 15591. Bibcode:2025NatSR..1515591M. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-99060-2. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 12050267. PMID 40320467.
This paper considers the inner alignment problem in the context of determining whether an AI model (formalized as a Turing machine) satisfies an arbitrary nontrivial semantic property. They show that this problem is algorithmically undecidable in general, by observing that this is just the statement of Rice's theorem, which has been known for 74 years. Not exactly earthshattering research, but it at least supports the definition of "inner alignment".
Li, Kanxue; Zheng, Qi; Zhan, Yibing; Zhang, Chong; Zhang, Tianle; Lin, Xu; Qi, Chongchong; Li, Lusong; Tao, Dapeng (August 2024). "Alleviating Action Hallucination for LLM-based Embodied Agents via Inner and Outer Alignment". 2024 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence (PRAI). pp. 613–621. doi:10.1109/PRAI62207.2024.10826957. ISBN 979-8-3503-5089-0. Retrieved 28 June 2025. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
This article seems to use "inner alignment" and "outer alignment" in a very different way from the exposition in Inner alignment.

The widely adopted approach for model alignment follows a two-stage alignment paradigm: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by reinforcement learning (RL) [29]. However, implementing RL to achieve action space alignment for LLM-based embodied agents in embodied environments presents several challenges [...] To address the above challenges, this paper proposes an innovative alignment method that synergizes inner alignment with outer alignment, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Specifically, in the inner alignment, parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods including Q-Lora [24] and Deepspeed [26] are utilized [...] The second stage is outer alignment, which differs from traditional methods that update model parameters using reinforcement learning. In this stage, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) [17] method is employed.

It seems to me that "inner alignment" and "outer alignment" are used here only to signify two separate stages of LLM training. It doesn't obviously have a connection to the topic as defined in the head of the article.
Kilian, Kyle A.; Ventura, Christopher J.; Bailey, Mark M. (1 August 2023). "Examining the differential risk from high-level artificial intelligence and the question of control". Futures. 151: 103182. arXiv:2211.03157. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2023.103182. ISSN 0016-3287. Retrieved 28 June 2025. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
This is an article in a futures studies journal. The method of study was via a large-scale survey of researchers at universities, research groups, and leading AI companies, but also "popular AI alignment forums and existential risk conferences". Participants "self-report[ed] on level of expertise". The authors asked participants to assess the likelihood and impacts of various future possibilities including "Inner Alignment" and "AGI"; see the Appendix (arXiv) for the full survey. They then found various correlations among the participants' responses.
Sicari, Sabrina; Cevallos M., Jesus F.; Rizzardi, Alessandra; Coen-Porisini, Alberto (10 December 2024). "Open-Ethical AI: Advancements in Open-Source Human-Centric Neural Language Models". ACM Computing Surveys. 57 (4): 83:1–83:47. doi:10.1145/3703454. ISSN 0360-0300. Retrieved 28 June 2025. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
A survey article which mentions "inner alignment" once in the Related Works section: "The survey in [265] focuses instead on the alignment of LLMs, distinguishing between techniques devoted to the correct encoding of alignment goals (outer alignment) and techniques that ensure a robust extrapolation of the encoded goals over OOD scenarios (inner alignment)." (Here [265] is a different survey published on arXiv.)
For comparison, here is the current text of Inner alignment supported by this citation:

Inner alignment as a key element in achieving human-centric AI has been outlined, particularly models that satisfy the "3H" criteria: Helpful, Honest, and Harmless. In this context, inner alignment refers to the reliable generalization of externally defined objectives across novel or adversarial inputs.

A range of techniques to support this goal has been highlighted, including parameter-efficient fine-tuning, interpretability-focused design, robust training, and factuality enhancement. These strategies aim to ensure that models not only learn aligned behavior but also retain and apply it across deployment contexts. Inner alignment is thus viewed as critical to making aligned AI behavior stable and generalizable.

I am not certain how we got all that from this sentence.
Safron, Adam; Sheikhbahaee, Zahra; Hay, Nick; Orchard, Jeff; Hoey, Jesse (2023). "Value Cores for Inner and Outer Alignment: Simulating Personality Formation via Iterated Policy Selection and Preference Learning with Self-World Modeling Active Inference Agents". Active Inference: Third International Workshop, IWAI 2022, Grenoble, France, September 19, 2022, Revised Selected Papers. Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 343–354. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28719-0_24. ISBN 978-3-031-28719-0. Retrieved 28 June 2025. Accessed via The Wikipedia Library.
This article mentions "inner alignment" once to define it, and then never mentions it separately from "outer alignment" again. Most of the article reads like total nonsense to me, but I gather that the authors speculate that AI could be designed using analogies to certain biological processes in the brain.
Dung, Leonard (26 October 2023). "Current cases of AI misalignment and their implications for future risks". Synthese (Original research). 202 (5). Springer. doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04367-0. ISSN 0039-7857. Retrieved 26 June 2025. {{cite journal}}: |article= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Careful not to confuse this with an identically-titled article by "Chris herny, uniy taiwo". In any case as noted by David Gerard (edit: that was about a different article) this article only mentions "inner alignment" once, in a footnote discussing the views of an arXiv paper and an Alignment Forum post.
Here is the current text of Inner alignment supported by this citation:

Case studies highlight inner alignment risks in deployed systems. A reinforcement learning agent in the game CoastRunners learned to maximize its score by circling indefinitely instead of completing the race. Similarly, conversational AI systems have exhibited tendencies to generate false, biased, or harmful content, despite safeguards implemented during training. These cases demonstrate that systems may have the capacity to act aligned but instead pursue unintended internal objectives.

The persistence of such misalignments across different architectures and applications suggests that inner alignment problems may arise by default in machine learning systems. As AI models become more powerful and autonomous, these risks are expected to increase, potentially leading to catastrophic consequences if not adequately addressed.

This seems like WP:SYN to me, since the actual article does not mention inner alignment in connection with these considerations.
Elestrophe (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent work here Elestrophe. Simonm223 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanu Srivastav

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bhanu Srivastav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. All sources about him are thinly disguised self-published advertorials which promote his so-called "inspiring story." Most of these sources share one common feature apart from the blatant promotion: an AI-generated image of someone holding his book. The article creator is a WP:SPA who is WP:!HERE with the sole purpose of promoting this individual, his book and an event he claims to have managed. Yuvaank (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page which uses the same spam sources:[reply]

Deified: The Legacy of Yesterday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Disclosure: I represent the subject per WP:COI.

1. Notability Conclusively Established (WP:BIO) Independent significant coverage exists across three distinct notability pathways in India's most authoritative editorial outlets:

WP:AUTHOR (Literary significance): • India Today (17 May 2024): Thematic analysis of *Deified*'s exploration of marital oppression ("Sanvi’s fight for freedom") • Financial Express (10 Apr 2024): Narrative critique dissecting societal pressures

WP:ENTREPRENEUR (Career documentation): • Times of India (11 Mar 2025): Career profile detailing departure from banking to found AI venture INFINITY • Outlook India (22 Jun 2024): Business reporting on viral resignation

WP:CHARITY (Philanthropic impact): • Outlook India (29 May 2024): Verified documentation of royalty donations to Childline India

→ Policy compliance: Exceeds WP:SIGCOV threshold with 20+ paragraphs of substantive coverage across four national publications.

2. Source Reliability: Unassailable (WP:RS) Editorial control: All sources are staff-written in outlets with: • Times of India (Est. 1838; 4M+ circulation; editorial standards) • Financial Express (Est. 1961; financial authority) • India Today (Top English magazine with 40+ editorial staff) • Outlook (National Magazine Award winner)

No paid content: No advertorials or press releases used Weak sources excluded: Zee News, DNA India, Republic intentionally omitted

3. Preemptive Neutrality Enforcement ✓ All promotional language removed ✓ Zero unsourced claims ✓ Exclusive use of Tier-1 sources ✓ Edits open for community oversight per WP:COIEDIT

4. Corroborating Evidence • Academic recognition: University of Munich research paper analyzing *Deified*'s social themes (Scholar) • Literary corpus: 4+ books indexed on Google Books • Media footprint: 18+ articles in Google News

5. Closing Legal Imperative Deletion would violate several core Wikipedia principles: • WP:PRESERVE – verifiable content should not be deleted • WP:BEFORE – improvement is preferred over deletion • WP:BLP – ensures accurate representation of living people • WP:CRED – all sources meet highest editorial standards

The coverage in Times of India (1838–), India Today (1975–), Outlook (award-winning), and Financial Express (est. 1961) provides irrefutable evidence of notability per WP:GNG. I urge !vote Keep and invite collaborative improvements.

-- surya7t (talk) Surya7t (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Duffbeerforme, Bearian, and Alpha3031: Final Policy Defense: !vote Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:BEFORE Disclosure: I represent the subject per WP:COI. The article has been fully sanitized to comply with all policies:

1. "Addressing Advertising" Concern (duffbeerforme) • The article contains zero promotional language - current version proves no "visionary/inspiring" exists • Cites only editorial journalism from India's top outlets: 

 - India Today: Literary analysis of marital oppression themes  
 - Times of India: Career documentation

Labeling this "advertising" violates WP:ASPERSIONS. I challenge you to identify one non-neutral phrase.

2. “Too Soon” or “News-Based” Concern (Bearian) Coverage meets WP:GNG because: • Not "news" but deep profiles:

Substantive Coverage Analysis
Source Type Depth Policy Compliance
Financial Express Literary critique 1200+ words WP:AUTHOR
Outlook Philanthropic program Permanent structure WP:ORG

• Timeline spans 25+ months (India Today: Mar 2023 → ToI: Mar 2025) • Established career: 10+ year banking tenure pre-dates coverage Per WP:CRYSTAL, deletion cannot speculate on "future relevance" when current sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV.

3. “Spam Sources” Concern (Alpha3031) This claim is factually false and policy-violating: • Sources are India's most authoritative outlets:

Source Credibility Matrix
Outlet Est. Circulation Awards WP Precedent
Times of India 1838 4M+ 50+ National Awards Chetan Bhagat
India Today 1975 1.2M Ramnath Goenka Award Arundhati Roy

• Calling them "spam": 

 1. Violates WP:ASPERSIONS  
 2. Contradicts WP:NEWSORG  
 3. Threatens Category:Indian writers

Provide specific WP:RS violations or withdraw per WP:AGF.

Policy Compliance Proof checkY WP:GNG: 20+ paragraphs across 5+ sources checkY WP:AUTHOR/WP:ENTREPRENEUR: Multi-domain notability checkY WP:NPOV: Zero promotional content checkY WP:BLP: All claims sourced to Tier-1 outlets

Policy Compliance Warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Deletion would violate core Wikipedia policies: 1. WP:PRESERVE: Destroying verifiable, policy-compliant content 2. WP:BEFORE: Overlooking completed improvements 3. WP:CRED: Rejecting India's oldest newspapers

This discussion now tests fundamental standards: • Whether Times of India (est. 1838) qualifies as reliable • Whether 1200-word literary critiques constitute "significant coverage" • Whether permanent philanthropic programs establish notability

Precedent implication: Closing delete would logically require re-evaluating thousands of articles citing these sources, including Chetan Bhagat and Arundhati Roy.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surya7t (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final human plea: !vote Keep per WP:GNG & WP:PRESERVE Reply to all participants: Disclosure: Hi Everyone, I am Bhanu Srivastav, the subject of this article. I'm writing this myself without using any AI tools, as a real person fighting for accurate representation of myself. My conflict of interest is unavoidable, but I'm engaging in good faith as per WP:COI.

1. "Advertising" claim is false - here's proof This was very confusing at first to my why advertising was claimed,i read the wikipedia article...I doublechecked, the article has NO promotional language AT ALL...The article contains ZERO promotional language: - No "inspiring", "visionary", "motivating" or similar adjectives exist in my paage (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Bhanu_Srivastav) - Sources are like, proper journalism independent ones: 

 • Times of India: [Career doc](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/from-zero-to-infinity-how-bhanu-srivastav-risked-everything-to-build-indias-ai-revolution/articleshow/119866286.cms) by staff writers  
 • India Today: [Literary analysis](https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/story/despair-to-empowerment-exploring-bhanu-srivastavs-deified-2540235-2024-05-17) of social themes

These outlets never contacted me, i think they might have picked the data from publically available on internet - they're objective reports. Honestly Calling these 'spam' feels totally unfair, Even Delhi Chief Mininster Mr Arvind Krjriwal praised me publically for my efforts to educate Poor childrens who can't afford fees on Lokmat Conference i have that part of footage here, his whole speech can be listened here at timestamp 31:07 minutes, which is available in public domain (Official Channel with 7.44 million subscribers). **But I know that YouTube isn't a wiki source, i was just sharing my context.**

2. Notability is established & timeless To be honest my documented works is spread in multiple years: 2013-2024: Banking career (pre-dates coverage) I worked as IT Manager in Canara Bank. April 2024: Financial Express 1200-word critique May 2024: Outlook documents permanent charity (actually i have partnered with Childline India which is supported by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India to donate all my royalties for poor children's education, i have the contract document with me in case you need to see..) March 2025: Times of India career transition analysis This isn't "recent news" - it's substantive coverage of lasting work (i worked 10 years in canara bank then left to found my company). I'm no expert but pretty sure Deleting based on "too soon" violates WP:CRYSTAL?

3. Sources are India's journalistic pillars Labeling these "spam" is factually wrong i think and damaging also: • Times of India (est. 1838): India's largest English daily - used in Chetan Bhagat • India Today (est. 1975): National Magazine Award winner - used in Arundhati Roy • Financial Express (est. 1961): Financial authority - used in N. R. Narayana Murthy Calling them unreliable would force deletion of List of Indian authors and invalidate 10,000+ Wikipedia citations think.

Core policy compliance ✓ WP:GNG: 20+ paragraphs across 5+ sources ✓ WP:AUTHOR: Literary analysis in India Today/Financial Express & other news. ✓ Philanthropic notability: Permanent donations documented by Outlook & other sources i also have proof of proper contract signed between me and Childline India which is govt-backed org ✓ WP:BEFORE: All improvements completed

Final appeal Deleting this article would: 1. Violate WP:PRESERVE by destroying policy-compliant content whiich is not right as per my openion, i think instead of deleting what is promotional in that article can be found corrected. I’m not an expert, so I welcome correction fron anyone & everyone. 2. Insult Indian media by dismising Times of India and other sources... 3. Punish my goodfaith efforts to fix every issue I'll accept ANY neutral edits - just preserve my documented history. Please guide me how can i help or any other details are required from me to comply wikipedia policy. Thank yo so much for your time,Thanks for letting me be part of this process, even though I know I’m not a regular editor. Just wanted to give context from my side which i frankly think can help the wikipedia community. I respect whatever decision is made.

  • Keep

Surya7t (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Surya7t[reply]

Just to be clear, you think it's objectively true that you're the most fearless person ever? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank u so much for raising this important thing about neutrality.
Just to clarify: I didn’t call myself "the most fearless person" ever. That phrase comes from a Times of India editorial (March 2025) likely the journalist’s take on my resignation from Canara Bank one year back in June 2024. the story was, I faced 17 transfers in 10 years my service (2014 - 2024) & since public-sector bank jobs in India are secure & rarely resigned from, it caught attention. It trended on X.com in June 2024 & media outlets like Moneycontrol.com & Dainik Jagran contacted me for interviews which I declined. My resignation mail was short & polite which said "sorry I’ll not be joining" went viral online screenshots were shared widely. In India's public sector banking system job security is absolute & resignations are very very rare, since it was an unusual case, the media might have framed it their way.  
If u search "Bhanu Srivastav resignation" on internet you’ll find hundreds of screenshots of my resignation mail which was circulated at that time from past coverage or socialmedia.
I completely agree such subjective labels don’t belong on Wikipedia. As of now, the article does not use “fearless” or any such similar phrasing. u can check the same, I’m absolutely open to further improvements per WP:NPOV.
Thanx again Apha3031 for helping ensure accuracy & neutrality. My goal is strict adherence of Wikipedia’s policy not to defend media phrasing. I appreciate your vigilance in ensuring neutrality. Surya7t (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Punish my goodfaith efforts to fix every issue". But you've only made one small edit to the page. Oh, you mean with your other account, Ashish Verma 9891? The account that created and owns copyright of your signature so has to be you. That's sockpuppetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Duffbeerforme,
Thank you so much for your vigilance & keeping Wikipedia’s standards high. I want to be completely transparent, I’m Bhanu Srivastav & both Surya7t & AshishVerma9891 are my accounts. Seriously I now realize that using 2nd account was a serious mistake & violates Wikipedia’s sockpuppetry policy WP:SOCK. I’m very sorry for this & confusion & extra work I’ve caused you & the wiki community.
Account Issue:
I used AshishVerma9891 alongside Surya7t, which violates WP:SOCK. I will:
(i) Immediately stop using AshishVerma9891.
(ii) Request admin help to merge/attribute its edits to Surya7t (to preserve content).
(iii) Edit only as Surya7t going forward, with full WP:COI disclosure.
Article Status:
(i) The content meets WP:GNG via Times of India, India Today, etc.
(ii) All promotional language has been removed per WP:NPOV.
(iii) I welcome any more improvements from the community.
Moving Forward:
(i) I’ll follow all guidance from experienced editors like yourself.
(ii) I'm happy to complete any Wikipedia training if needed.
Request: I understand the seriousness of this violation and will accept community's decision regarding both the article and my editing privileges.Let’s focus on the article’s verifiable content, I’m committed to keeping it policy-compliant. Thanks for your patience.
— surya7t ~~~~ Surya7t (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So when you released press releases with a contact of "Ashish Verma" that was what? And putting out these press releases and writing about yourself on Wikipedia (which features heavily on Google searches) was about you living your life "in an anonymous way" and trying to be "totally Google proof"?
"If u search "Bhanu Srivastav resignation" on internet you’ll find hundreds of screenshots of my resignation mail". Do you realise people are able to easily test this claim? Nope, not seeing hundreds. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pushing for accuracy - I owe you a clearer explanation. Let me address this properly:
  1. About the "Ashish Verma" thing in old press releases Ashish was a freelance PR representative for my debut book launch in 2020, unrelated to my identity. I think events>5 years old are irrelevant to current notability. The article relies exclusively on 2024-2025 independent journalism (Times of India, Outlook, etc.). He handled PR for my first book back in 2020. I hadn't thought about him in years until this came up. Using a similar username here was stupid not malicious, just a dumb oversight I regret. Lesson learned.
  2. The resignation visibility point You're right to call me out on the "hundreds of screenshots" phrasing. What I should've said is that when my resignation went around in June 2024, I saw tons of shares in banking WhatsApp groups and Twitter circles. But you've got a point,Google doesn't show much now. That's my bad for not being precise,it holds me accountable... I was referring to June 2024, when my resignation from Canara Bank trended on X.com and circulated widely in banking communities in India. Over time, many of those posts were likely removed or de-indexed from Google.
The key thing is what reliable sources documented at the time:
  • Times of India (March 2025) called it a "career shift that drew national attention"
  • Outlook (May 2024) covered my royalty donations from that period
3. Where I stand now I know my early edits were messy. but I've:
  • Stopped using any other accounts
  • checked for all promotional language from the article
  • Added clear COI disclosures to my user page, you can check it
The current version just states facts from proper sources like Times of India and India Today, no hype, no self-praise. If anything still reads wrong, please guide me Duffbeerforme.
Bottom line: However you feel about my past screwups, the article itself now meets all Wikipedia rules. Killing it would lose verified info about:
  • The banking resignation documented by ToI
  • Literary work analyzed by India Today
  • Charity work covered by Outlook
I welcome improvements to this article or will gladly step aside for neutral editors to refine it. I'm happy to take any mentoring from experienced editors like you.
Respectfully,
Surya7t (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from being self-promotional; aside from the use of sock puppets; not so aside the wall of inappropriate text here (AI? I dunno); but finally, the book is self published, so definitely add that to the delete. From Amazon.in: Publisher ‏ : ‎ Deified Publications Lamona (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona: Dear Lamona,,
    Thanks for keeping me honest,I know my earlier mess-ups made trust hard. Let me walk through this transparncy
    1. Self-Published Book
    No sugarcoating Deified came out through my own imprint Deified Publications, in 2024. i think per WP:SELFPUB self-published works are acceptable when supported by independent & reliable coverage. The book has received:
    - India Today (May 2024): "Thematic analysis of Deified’s exploration of marital oppression."
    - Times of India (March 2025): Multi-paragraph profile on its impact.
    - Outlook India (May 2024): Coverage of its charity tie-in.
    These WP:RS compliant sources provide significant coverage contributing WP:GNG.
    2. My account screw-up
    I fully own it: using two accounts was dumb. Since being called out:
    - Torched the secondary account 🔥
    - Added
    This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Error: No article specified.
    to my profile
  • - Double checked for all promo language from the article What's left? Just facts from the sources above.
  • 3. Self-Promotion
    there is no promotional language in wiki article ensuring it aligns with WP:NPOV. If any sections still need adjustment I welcome your specific feedback.
    4. Broader Notability
    My page’s notability is primarily rooted in my career and resignation, covered by:
    - Times of India (March 2025): "Career shift from banking to AI entrepreneurship."
    - Financial Express (April 2024): "Unconventional resignation triggering industry discussion."
    - Outlook India (May 2024): "Royalty donations to Childline India."
    These independent staff-written articles meet WP:GNG’s requirement for substantial coverage.
    Here’s my ask: Before hitting delete, consider:
    - The article’s clean now per WP:NPOV
    - Killing it erases verified career history from authoritative Indian press
    - as Per WP:BEFORE, we improve valid content, not nuke it
    I’d be grateful for your guidance or happy to let neutral editors take over. No games. Just want to preserve what’s real.
    Thanks again for your concerns Lamona, i've tried to answer all of them and remove any doubt
    Surya7t ~~~~ Surya7t (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 262

[edit]
ISO/TC 262 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding WP:SIGCOV in independent sources; my WP:BEFORE search turns up plenty of non-independent sources (e.g. [6][7]), but nothing substantial. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Material Sciences Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

N/C in 2017, and I think it's time for another look as corp depth still does not appear to be there in WP:SIRS Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are very normal corporate business sources, not ones that establish notability by Wikipedia standards. PickleG13 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Profile: Material Sciences Corporation". Noise & Vibration Worldwide. 38 (7). Sage Publishing: 21–22. July 2007. doi:10.1260/0957-4565.38.7.21. EBSCOhost 26045472.

      According to this page, Noise & Vibration Worldwide is a peer-reviewed journal. The article notes: "Material Sciences Corporation provides material-based solutions for acoustical and coating applications that address noise, temperature problems in the automotive, HVAC, electronics, power equipment, and construction industries. Founded in 1971 the company now has 600 employees in the US, Europe, and Asia and a network of partners on four continents. In fiscal 2006, MSC had net sales of $287 million and net income of $5.2 million. MSC has one of the largest independent sound engineering laboratories in North America, an application research centre located in Canton, MI."

    2. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues. ... Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals. ... As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market."

    3. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the money losing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as anti-vibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest."

    4. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors. Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances. In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks. ... Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford."

    5. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Encyclopedia.com.

      From Cengage.com:

      When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.

      The book notes:

      Public Company

      Incorporated: 1971

      Employees: 740

      Sales: $266.8 million (2003)

      Stock Exchanges: New York

      Ticker Symbol: MSC

      NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers

      Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.

      Founding the Company in 1971

      MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...

      The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
    6. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:

      Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.

      Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.

      Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.

      Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.

      Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.

      Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.

      Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.

    7. Hoover's had an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes: "Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US."

      Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail. Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm quite torn on this one, but are you volunteering to fix the article and add something beyond numbers and timelines of announcements? Your rebuttal to the proposal to delete this is at least one order of magnitude longer than the article. FalconK (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You already found several of these on the last AFD and I am unconvinced of WP:CORPDEPTH. I suppose it depends if the Nelson Forbes pieces are significant. IgelRM (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer effect

[edit]
Transformer effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mutual inductance and Inductive coupling already have much more information here. The transformer effect certainly is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this, either. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Labs

[edit]
Oswald Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concurrence with Nom and User: Almandavi in toto, besides which, there does not seem to be particular significance to the company in general. One of their headline products, Agastya seems to lack any major adopters, and the publicly facing version on WordPress was last updated in 2019. Augmenta11y is gone from the Google Play Store, and is listed under a different name and different publisher in the Apple App Store. Valmiki, their web browser extension has been taken down from the Google Chrome Web store. SherivanOS is a concept that doesn't even have an alpha test out, and is, in all likelihood a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL in as many words. As far as I can tell, Oswald Labs has no products which are notable or commercially viable. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cybage

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cybage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortude

[edit]
Fortude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article per WP:NCORP; sources I could find seem to fail WP:ORGCRIT (I'll add a breakdown below).

I think the article should be deleted or redirected to Brandix. But the (declared paid) article creator reverted an earlier change to a redirect, and reverted my recent attempt at a move to draftspace, so I'm coming here to reach a consensus.

Some additional context: The paid creator originally started the article as a draft in AFC. Once it was rejected twice at AFC,[10] they copy and pasted the article directly into mainspace,[11] and then possibly blanked the original rejected draft.[12] I attempted to explain that they should go through AFC on their talkpage when I moved it to draftspace, but they simply reverted the move with no explanation, and then expanded the article with more press releases. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: Below are my breakdown of the sources currently in the article (excluding sources from Fortude or Brandix). Outside of these sources, the ones I could find (even using the company's previous name) mainly seemed to be press releases or routine coverage.
Assessment of sources from current article
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
No byline; author could be anyone, but it reads like a company press release No byline; author could be anyone and there may not be much editorial oversight No No discussion/analysis; seems like press release/routine coverage Yes
No byline, same as above No byline, same as above No No discussion/analysis; seems like press release/routine coverage Yes
No Paid press release from GlobeNewswire No Paid press release No Paid press release No Press release
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
Yes Independent author, but about half of the article is quotes from employees May not have much editorial oversight; author is one of 2 editors of the website No No in-depth coverage/analysis of Fortude Yes
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
No byline; author could be anyone, but it reads like a company press release No byline; author could be anyone and there may not be much editorial oversight No Coverage of name change with no discussion/analysis Yes
No Published by Microsoft, the giver of the grant to Fortude that is mentioned in the article Yes No 1 sentence about Fortude Yes
No Published by Microsoft, same as above Yes Lots of info, but seems like routine coverage of facts without analysis Yes
No Published by Microsoft, same as above Yes No 1 passing mention of Fortude (in list of thank yous to Microsoft's "customers and partners") Yes
No author byline, meaning author could be anyone; reads like press release/churnalism Seems to have an editorial team, but no author byline makes it questionable No Routine coverage, no analysis/discussion about Fortude Yes
No byline; author could be anyone No byline, and I cannot find listed the editorial team or oversight on the website Yes Yes
No byline; author could be anyone, and it reads like a press release; line "as we collectively strive" sounds like it was copied from something sent to them Not sure, because of absence of byline Seems like routine coverage, but there does seem to be some extra discussion/cultural context given Yes
No byline; author could be anyone Not sure, because of absence of byline No Seems like press release/routine coverage of award; no analysis of the company Yes
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More or less agree with nom, also if the page creator remains uncommunicative they should probably be blocked until they learn how to talk to people (preferably without using AI like they're doing for content and, more obviously, their user page). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No truly independent sources. If you were to remove the obvious primary sources and the press releases (which includes the two Daily Mirror cites - I found 3-4 other identical articles so I have no doubt that they were press releases) there is nothing near NCORP. I admit that I do my searches in Google from the US so it is possible that there are other sources that do not turn up for me. I will cycle back to check. Lamona (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTech

[edit]
FuelTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find real WP:SIGCOV for this, excluding press releases, copies of press releases on industry websites, and one promotional interview. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the three references presented by Svartner is that they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology

[edit]
Institute of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not look to be a notable institution. Barely any in-depth coverage on the same. Most of it seems to be trivial mention or paid PR Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep this is a public university with over 1000+ students and there is some coverage of it in various sources: [16] [17]. It is not extensive but probably enough for an University. --hroest 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I-CTDi

[edit]
I-CTDi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This covers the same topic as Common rail#Acronyms and branding used and does not meet WP:N. It is simply a marketing term, used by Honda in the European market between 2002 and 2008.
The article was created as a redirect and remained one for 16 years, when long-term vandal Sevgilerde tried restoring it. It was then turned back into a redirect by ToadetteEdit, Rosguill, Ponyo, Boleyn, and a fifth editor who has since vanished. "i-CTDi" is simply a badging applied by Honda to two separate diesel engines, the N22A engineand an Isuzu engine modified by Honda. When Honda updated the N22A engine, they switched to the i-DTEC acronym. Both of these are simply marketing terms used by Honda for their diesel engines, just like Renault's DCi, Mercedes' Cgi, and Hyundai's CRDI - all of which were turned into articles by the same vandal and correctly turned back into redirects. Any of the meaningful content used here would be more suitable at Honda N engine or Kenichi Nagahiro (someone just needs to create that).
Also see D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi for additional, analogous redirects.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm.. I see some interesting history here. A year ago, I BLAR'd the article claiming that it was non notable, but got quickly reverted. Since then, at least two other reviewers agreed that it should be redirected to common rail, but their attempts were both reverted as well. I currently see that Andy Dingley disagreed with the views of three unique reviewers and restored the article to the version made by the sock together with expanding the article. It looks different than what I initially saw so expect a commentary within the next 24 hours. But now I doubt that the history might warrant a report at ANI, who knows? ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I took a review of the article, and frankly enough, I do not know if it will pass WP:GNG or not. I see scholary journals discussing the subject in detail, but they are written by people at Honda, so I do not know whether the journals are independent enough or not. I also see that the first source is from Honda,so it does not establish notability in the context. I also see other websites, but they are in favor of the car models other than the subject itself. Unless it can be justified that at least two sources away from Honda show SIGCOV, Redirect to common rail with no prejudice to page development in the draftspace so as to be submitted via AFC. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that, as far as I can tell, the SAE article is specifically about the N22A engine – it's paywalled but the blurb makes no mention of the i-CTDi marketing name.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone be motivated to create an article Kenichi Nagahiro , just so that you can delete it and call them a vandal?
We have policies here based on WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. You are ignoring these in favour of some personal disagreement with another editor. Even if they're guilty of whatever it is you allege, this has now grown to the detriment of the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOODFAITH, please. Compare DCi, Cgi, CRDI, D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or a better message is to both of you to be separate one another and assume good faith. In particular that the comment above does not address the content but rather to the nominator, which is short of the Wikipedia:Civility policy. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to hide behind 'good faith' when you're the one repeatedly describing anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. First time you did this to me you were taken to ANI over it. You then repeated the same term. So please don't pretend that you didn't know that at least one of us here finds that a deeply offensive allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Beerware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Slight merge to open source is possible, but this page should not remain as-is due to a general lack of any notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pirated movie release types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I also agree that it is very informative. This article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology and release patterns that have been widely used and referenced in digital media communities for decades. While improvements in sourcing and structure may be needed, the topic itself is verifiably notable through its sustained use in torrenting platforms, piracy-related discussions, and tech journalism. Deletion appears to be motivated, at least in part, by ideological opposition to the subject matter rather than a neutral assessment of whether this information is citable and informative. Wikipedia’s purpose is to document what exists in the world—not to legitimise or condemn it.— SBWalkerP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    I am not sure where in the nomination one would find "ideological opposition to the subject matter". If you are implying this is due to edits outside of the discussion, that is a WP:ADHOMINEM personal attack. You have also not provided sources as evidence for your claim it is notable. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s clearly an LLM-written vote ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does need more policy-based input focusing on whether reliable sources exist for this content. WP:USEFUL comments are not helpful, and neither are suggestions to merge this already overlong article into another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Third party sources, article is sourced. Looks decent. as stated above the article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology.BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast from the past, but what are the sources which treat these as a group? Just starting with the basics, I did a search for '"cam" "telesync" "screener" "dvdrip"' and found no reliable sources. Yes, each might be verifiable on its own, but we need WP:NLIST. It's challenging in that (a) most of this relates to online piracy culture, and few reliable sources treat that with the nerdy depth this list goes for, (b) this stuff was most popular 20 years ago, so there's a lot of link rot in play. It's certainly possible sources exist, but I'm not seeing them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this should be an article of its own, but Online piracy is clearly full. Shockingly the page Movie piracy is a redirect so I suggest that an article is expanded at that link and then this is merged into that article. I think this content is worth keeping and Manwithbigiron has found some quality sources that can serve as a base. The current article name and contents need some cleaning up, its not 2007 wikipedia anymore. Moritoriko (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Moritoriko. Should meet NList as pirated movies are clearly notable as a whole (with classifications discussed by Manwithbigiron's sources) though I agree that this seems like it'd be better off merged with a future Movie piracy article. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to note that keeping in the current state is not what I support. Moritoriko (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote is for merging eventually. I would've made my bolded part "merge" after starting a basic Movie piracy article myself, but there's so little information on Wikipedia anywhere that I don't know where to start. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, we have a clear consensus for "this doesn't belong here, but it probably belongs somewhere". Relisting for one more week in the hopes that this helps us figure out where that somewhere might be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]