Talk:Big Tech

MAGA as a valid term
I (personally) have never heard/seen anyone refer to Microsoft | Apple | Google | Amazon as `MAGA`, and given |the much more obvious definition for that acronym, and the fact that only one (very paywalled) article even ventures to refer to it as such, indicates it should be removed, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verygoodsoftwarenotvirus (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree, strongly (and respectfully), for many reasons that I feel are strong. Firstly, the Financial Times article is not the only one - there is a CNBC article (cited also on this article) which also uses "MAGA" to refer to the same companies. In fact, from a quick internet search, there are other outlets using MAGA in the same way, including The Economist. Secondly, an article being paywalled doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or is somehow illegitimate. Especially when it comes from such a reputable source as the Financial Times. Thirdly, whether the acronym is the same as another acronym with a different meaning is completely irrelevant. All that matters is whether "MAGA" has indeed been used by reputable sources to describe four of the biggest tech companies, which it has. The National Rifle Association shares an acronym with Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority - does that mean we should delete the article on Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority? Again, with due respect, I very strongly disagree with your reasoning. Surely the ONLY criterion that should be used to judge whether "MAGA" should be included in this article, as a grouping of four tech companies (which is the subject of the article, until it is merged / renamed to "Big Tech"), is whether reputable sources have used that acronym to group four big tech companies together. And they have — the Financial Times, CNBC, and The Economist. CyclingFan1234 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to follow on from one of the points I made, about paywalled sources. Obviously sources without paywalls are preferable. But if the only sources are ones with paywalls, it's better than nothing, according to Wikipedia's official docs: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" (WP:PAYWALL). The Financial Times, CNBC, and The Economist are still definitely extremely reputable sources, despite any paywall / ad block blocker (in the case of CNBC). CyclingFan1234 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "MAGA" refers to "Make America Great Again", a slogan used by Donald Trump and the Republican political party in USA. It has nothing to do with Big Tech.
 * Engineering Guy (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Very strongly. 1. The term is just as toxic as those coprorations. 2. They are just as criminal and destructive as the orange leader. 3. It merges what is the same. 4. It is fun(ny) and highly memorable. And, most importantly 5. It is actually the big four, instead of an arbitrary combo like FAANG thst includes much smaller ones. … Of course, fans of the orange literally actually fascist dictator hate it. (See above.) Good. — 2A02:3035:608:8219:8680:51D:1BE:95CD (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose excempting Microsoft from GAFAM
Microsoft has high market value than Amazon and Facebook It is factually incorrect to call Amazon and Facebook are bigger than Microsoft.

The reason cited is not based on data and facts but merely just because a Google staff called Microsoft is not part of it, what happened to review policies of Wikipedia.

Masem Overhaul and Neutral POV
Opening this up to discuss whether the suggested edits are at all correct or necessary. There is no such thing as a "Big 7", as the user Masem suggests. It seems like this is wading strongly into the real of original research. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said that there was a termed "Big 7". Just that who is in Big Tech is a relatively nebulous thing as it depends on perspectives and grouping. Those 7 in the figure are definitely considered in some way or another in Big Tech, as well as numerous other companies. But then if you take the terms of Big Five or Big Four, that's well-defined subsets of it, just like there is G-MAFIA, BAT, and BATX. Key is that there is no one consistent definition of who is in "Big Tech", so describing that broader category first of whom is generally included, and then talking about the more well-defined subsets like Big Five and Big Four makes more sense. This then gets to the issue of why we are seeming focused on a few expert sources to discuss why Microsoft is excluded from the Big Four while it is in the Big Five, as we've already then established that Microsoft is already part of Big Tech, period. That ws to address the neutrality concerns raised: by starting broad and then winding to the narrower terms, the expert sources make sense. Using the expert sources for the narrow terms for and then working to large does make it seem like we're giving those experts undue weight in that specific order. --M asem (t) 14:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciated User:Masem's changes, since they addressed many of the problems with "Bay Area bias" that I identified in my comment under. User:Masem's changes (seen at "Big Tech" oldid=1050387751) properly emphasize "Big 5" more than "Big 4", as there is not a credible source that specifically excludes Microsoft from "Big Tech" in a neutral manner. It still bothers me that both the current version and the User:Masem's pre-revert changes include the incredibly biased (and incorrect) quote from former Google CEO and Chairman Eric Schmidt glibly dismissing Microsoft's impact on the consumer market. Measuring market capitalization (per File:10 Largest Corporations by Market Capitalization.png) seems much more neutral than relying on a quote from an executive who wishes to dismiss the influence of a strong competitor. -- RobLa (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good way to put it - Big Tech is a bunch of companies, and the way it was originally (and as I type it currently written) focuses on the US's Big Four. Starting broadly with the larger set and then narrowing is what I was trying to do as a first pass to fix it. --M asem (t) 16:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Big Tech companies are consistently defined in the media, academia, finance and tech industry as those four or five companies. Just look at the citations. These are not obscure sources either: we're talking Harvard Business Review (which specifically refers to the "Big Four"), Washington Post, Bloomberg, etc. Companies such as Twitter, Uber, etc. that are seldom mentioned as "Big Tech" are highlighted in the "Other companies" section. You cannot compare a company with nearly $400 billion in revenue like Amazon, or companies with duopolies over online advertising like Google and Facebook, or companies with autonomous car, quantum computing, palm scanning, consumer robotics divisions to a Twitter or an Uber. It's simply bad math. As for the difference between Big Four and Big Five, this is not simply for those "in the know". There are entire books written about the Big Four, notably "The Four" by Galloway who's probably the leading public intellectual on this topic. I'm not sure Schmidt's statement is even worth arguing because the "Big Four" is a recent concept (late 2010s, early 2020s). It's certainly not a "Bay Area bias" as it's a matter of fact that to this day Microsoft is far and wide an enterprise software and services company. Also, Amazon is entirely Seattle-based so what am I missing here? P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The definitions of Big Four and Big Five are very explicit, and that's not in question, those will remain key definitions. But there's no clear definition of what companies overall fall into "Big Tech", as that is the nebulous term. So the idea is, introducing Big Tech which includes multiple companies that are beyond the Big Four/Five, and then explaining the various subgroupings as the most common or oft-discussed ones, rather than trying to start from Big Four/Big Five and explain why the other companies are exclude from it, is a more neutral and natural approach. --M asem  (t) 16:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that's a more neutral approach. Most references to "Big Tech" concern those four or five companies. I would struggle to understand what definition you could ascribe to "Big Tech" if not to those four or five companies. Most "Big [insert industry here]" groupings have a political context to them because of the anti-competitive uproar they've received. You don't see senators making calls to break up Twitter, Uber, Snap, etc. They've focused their attention entirely on four companies: Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that nearly most common references to Big Tech are the Big Four or Big Five, but if you read those articles closely and compare with other articles, they do not state Big Tech is only those four or five, only that they will call out the specific four or five to give context. But it is clear that Big Tech is not exclusive to only those companies, hence why Big Four and Big Five were made to create the more specific subset. Yes, most of the criticism of Big Tech is around the Big Four/Five, but it is still far more neutral to discuss that Big Tech is a vague term and has vague memberships, but specific well-defined subsets exist, and then the article can move into that criticism. --M asem (t) 12:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, in terms of definition, any large technology company that has significant influence on user behavior is broadly defined as Big Tech. You mention Congress and in the bills that they have formed, they "target" Big Tech by defining the companies that would be regulated based on a minimum revenue size and a minimum user base they have; they don't list out names in these bills. --M asem  (t) 12:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're essentially proposing we dilute the generally understood definition of Big Tech. The generally understood definition of Big Tech, as I've described above, is the Big Four or Big Five. Other less common definitions that are more inclusive are captured in the "other" section and can be expanded upon if necessary. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming "Big Tech == Big Four/Five" is not consistent with sourcing. It may be that many people not in the know think that, but technology writers (books/scholarly/media) make it clear that Big Tech, in definition, encompasses more than the Big Four/Five, even though nearly every debate on the power of Big Tech focuses on what the Big Four/Five do. It is not neutral to assume Big Tech is only limited to the Big Four/Five. --M asem (t) 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - currently this article seems to focus too heavily on the "big four/five" aspect of big tech, when as far as I can tell from a quick look, sources do not seem to do the same. and  which came up on Google as recent news items containing the term, clearly include Twitter under their umbrella. From that it seems like the opening sentence, which explicitly limits the scope to "namely Amazon, Apple, Google (Alphabet), Facebook, and Microsoft" needs to be changed to reflect source usage.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that these articles and mountain of other evidence all disagree with you –
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2021/amazon-apple-facebook-google-acquisitions/
 * https://hbr.org/2020/07/do-the-u-s-s-big-four-tech-companies-have-a-vision-for-the-future
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-53575974
 * https://www.axios.com/facebook-amazon-apple-google-ceos-techs-big-four-big-contrasts-b189f4b0-9b6f-4486-9272-41e4c9bcc068.html
 * https://www.wired.co.uk/article/scott-galloway-the-four-book-review
 * https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/6/21505027/congress-big-tech-antitrust-report-facebook-google-amazon-apple-mark-zuckerberg-jeff-bezos-tim-cook
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53571562
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/technology/congress-big-tech-monopoly-power.html
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-big-tech-bills-facebook-google-apple-amazon-antitrust-2021-6
 * https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/09/1009999/congress-antitrust-report-big-tech-policy-opinion/
 * https://qz.com/303947/us-cultural-imperialism-has-a-new-name-gafa/
 * https://www.pcmag.com/news/what-pandemic-the-big-5-us-tech-companies-are-worth-more-than-ever
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/five-tech-giants-just-keep-growing-11619841644
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-15/the-big-five-could-destroy-the-tech-ecosystem
 * https://www.npr.org/2017/10/26/560136311/how-5-tech-giants-have-become-more-like-governments-than-companies
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/technology/big-tech-pandemic.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/technology/big-tech-profits.html
 * https://venturebeat.com/2019/06/15/where-the-next-big-five-of-tech-could-come-from/
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/outside-of-the-big-5-tech-companies-earnings-growth-is-zero.html
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/trump-heaps-praise-on-trillion-dollar-tech-club-calling-four-big-companies-maga.html
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/02/12/trump-calls-microsoft-amazon-google-apple-maga-companies/4737903002/
 * https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tech-giants-maga-stocks-lost-trillion-value-coronavirus-market-selloff-2020-3
 * https://www.ft.com/content/40ca92da-d3ef-47bb-b421-7d446d67bc52


 * I would literally have to sit here all day to list every source that refers explicitly and exclusively to Big Tech, the Tech Giants, or the Big Four/Five as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. Omitting this would amount to original research and an absolute dereliction of objectivity. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through these, they do not support the idea that Big Tech is limited only to the Big Four or Big Five. Just that if we're talking US interests, most of the criticism related to Big Tech involves the specific problems with the Big Four and Big Five. Big Tech is still a larger grouping beyond Big Four/Five, and many of these sources support that. There is no sourcing that supports limiting Big Tech to only Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon. Even the souricng used currently in the lede doesn't support that. That's why we need to be neutral to define Big Tech broadly, and then can dig into the specific criticism aligned at the Big Four/Five. --M asem  (t) 01:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources do clearly support the idea that Big Tech is nearly always limited to the Big Four or Big Five. Let me cite some specific sources given Masem has throughout this discussion provided zero arguments backed by data.
 * "The Big Tech bosses sounded uneasy, too. After all, America’s five tech titans didn’t do so hot in the Great Recession nearly 15 years earlier. Maybe they’d suffer this time around, too." - New York Times
 * "The already bonkers dollars of Big Tech have become even bonkers-er. My colleagues and I have written a lot about the unreal sales, profits and oomph of America’s five technology titans — Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook." - New York Times
 * "Apple, founded a few months after Jimmy Carter’s inauguration, is the oldest company among the Big Four and has a longer acquisition history that can be divided into two periods: before the iPhone and after ... Facebook hasn’t bought as many companies as its Big Tech peers"
 * "Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google — known as the Big 4 — now dominate many facets of our lives." - Washington Post
 * "In October, the House Judiciary Committee released a report that addressed the dominance and acquisition strategy of these four companies ... the House committee that reviewed more than a million documents as part of its antitrust investigation into Big Tech." - Washington Post
 * Are you sure you "read through" those sources? It's really quite unethical what you're doing. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Read those carefully because none of them say "Big Tech is only the Big Four/Five". Every use of Big Tech in those quotes is not a means to define it. I do agree with what you first say, that "Big Tech" very often is used in casual speak interchangibly with infering the Big Four or Five, and there's no reason this article cannot lead off with reiterating something like "Big Tech is often used to refer to the largest four or five companies, which are also called the Big Four and Big Five", but from WP's stance to be neutral we need to assert that the term has a broad and vague meaning that can include other companies beyond these five. --M asem (t) 01:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like the concept of a "Big Four" or "Big Five" is sometimes talked about in sources, particularly when it comes to the financial and monopolistic aspects, but from my own experience and from what I can see in sources too, Twitter is included regularly under the Big Tech umbrella, not just occasionally, particularly given the history with Trump and the whole censorship and fake news debate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sources actually hurt your own argument. You've cited multiple articles on a single lawsuit from Donald Trump as somehow evidence that Twitter is under the same umbrella. By comparison the citations I provided from the New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Washington Post, an entire book by a world leading expert, the CEO of Google, and almost every other trusted major news organization are written across a wide time horizon, are mutually exclusive and clearly refer to the Big Four or Big Five as being a distinct group. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are worth $1 trillion. Twitter is worth $50 billion - two orders of magnitude smaller. Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple compete across e-commerce, social media, robotics, autonomous cars, quantum computing, AI/ML, consumer electronics, and biotech. Twitter has a single product in a single vertical. Twitter is not by any means "under the same umbrella". Despite the fact that the sources clearly prove this, this conversation is somewhat ridiculous because it should just be common sense. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But again, this goes to understanding that Big Tech is generally any large technology company that managing information and used by millions of users, particularly considering regulation aimed at Big Tech (both Democratic and Republican). Criticism of Big Tech is generally limited to the Big Four or Five which which we do want to be clear about, and I would agree that Twitter is not considered part of the same consider of centralized power that the Big Four/Five have. But Twitter would still be considered Big Tech. --M asem (t) 12:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see what your issue with the changes (a large number you've wiped out) just because you feel that Big Tech only means the Big Four or Big Five. It is clear looking through literature that there is no accepted definition of Big Tech, only that most frequently, Big Tech is equated with the Big 4/5. But even in the state you want it, that statement (Big Tech == Big Four/Five) is contradicted in the body by mention of many other companies considered to be Big Tech (like Netflix). Again, the way I approached it is a reasonable summary of all sources and still asserts that most people mean the Big Four/Five when they talk Big Tech. --M asem (t) 19:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, your statement above shows that you may misunderstand Wikipedia editing standards. Your recommendation is a form of original research (WP:OR) and should be avoided. Big Tech is almost always used to refer to the "Tech Giants", "Big Four", or "Big Five" - as shown in the cited articles. On rare occasions other companies are mentioned alongside those companies, which is why those are called out as exceptions later on in the article. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what is original research, and that is saying Big Tech == Big 4/5. It is correct to say that most people mean the Big 4/5 when they say Big Tech, but that does not mean Big Tech automatically equals those. And no, as I have pointed out, the sources above do not state Big Tech is exclusively the Big 4/5. Even you point out that "most" state this, which is what I had changed it to reflect, that it is the most frequent associate with the term. That change does nothing to the rest of the article since most of the rest is focused on the criticism of the Big 4/5. --M asem (t) 02:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure you know what original research is, but putting that aside - almost no article states that Big Tech is a "broad grouping of tech companies that also includes Twitter, Uber, Snap, and Netflix". On the other hand, all of the cited articles refer to Big Tech and the Tech Giants as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. It's not original research to use what the media, academia, business community, etc. has predominantly stated so far about Big Tech as a basis for the definition. If the volume of evidence wasn't so heavily in favor of those four/five companies I'd agree with you. Let me put it this way: the only reason this article can exist in terms of having enough content to write about is because so much attention is given to the Big Four/Five. It is orders of magnitude more attention than the other companies you've mentioned. In fact, I can see an argument for potentially changing the title of this article to "Big Four/Five" and if justified creating a new article on the more inclusive and frankly ambiguous grouping of "Big Tech" companies you're referring. I'm not sure there's enough for the latter, however. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no issue on the bulk of the content talking about the Big 4/5 because I agree, that's where most of the criticism and action related to them are discussed, and I do not question that most when talking Big Tech equate that to the Big 4/5. But Big Tech is still not a well defined term outside of being big tech companies, your list of sources agree with this, as well as scholarly works around the term. Its fine to have the article focus on the Big 4/5, but to ignore that other companies can be included in Big Tech is missing out numerous sources (including those you list).
 * Also, you need to watch what your are reverting, because you are removing additions I added that have nothing to do with the Big Tech membership as well as others' contributions . When I put those back, I restored the lede to your preferred version . So you are edit warring because you are not being careful with your reverts and blinding removing everything. --M asem (t) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In general I support the lede section having other groupings but there is not enough RS's to include Snap and Uber. Snap is only cited in one, and it looks like Uber is not cited at all. Rauisuchian (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You continue to be the only one that claims tha Big Tech is only the American companies. Big Tech is a global term that, while in some context does imply the Big Four or Big Five, in other equal contexts, implies all big tech worldwide, including China. You need to stop reverting. --M asem (t) 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Facebook under meta absolutely belongs [to Big Tech]"
@Masem: I have been interested in the topic of this article for a long time and have read through some of the cited sources, but couldn't find any that counted the social media platform Facebook to Big Tech. When Facebook is mentioned, it is always only in the context as the company that is now called Meta.

It would be nice if you could name a source where the social media platform Facebook is explicitly counted to Big Tech.

If there is none, I think Facebook should be removed, or, if kept for retrospective reasons because Meta used to be Facebook, Inc., then remove the misleading link to the social media platform Facebook and write something like "The Big Four consist of Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, and Meta (formerly Facebook) [...]"-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A major concern around big tech is privacy issues of their millions of users as well as their (lack of) moderation of user generated content. That is absolutely related to the social media apps that any Big Tech owns, which in this case is Facebook for Meta. Its the same reason Google is included because of its user collection information. Also keep on mind that you still have FAANG and those other initializes coming here, so to not be upfront about Facebook would be misleading. --M asem (t) 22:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * hello my menbership is validated add a lawyers serverer headagleadgetacaretoonist to toune inmade ,.
 * tateltech 184.187.123.5 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * my name is christina ,marie sanchez all is remembered care forms a sercuresat tachteach me how to 184.187.123.5 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Outdated. Yes, I would have agreed, agreed, but not anymore. Facebook is a ghost town of a few lost souls nowadays. And Meta is much smaller. It is clear they’re on the way out. And Tesla and NVidia, for example, are bigger. 2A02:3035:608:8219:8680:51D:1BE:95CD (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"A major concern around big tech is privacy issues of their millions of users as well as their (lack of) moderation of user generated content. That is absolutely related to the social media apps that any Big Tech owns, which in this case is Facebook for Meta."

That's plausible and may be true, but when there's no source that supports the statement that therefore the social media platform Facebook belongs to Big Tech, I'm not sure whether we should claim it.

"Its the same reason Google is included because of its user collection information."

But Google is not a product, but the main company that belongs to Alphabet. According to the sources cited in this article, Big Tech is all about companies.

"Also keep on mind that you still have FAANG and those other initializes coming here, so to not be upfront about Facebook would be misleading."

That's the reason why I suggested the option of writing "[...] Meta (formerly Facebook) [...]".

Also, the letter "F" in these acronyms refers to the company, not the platform.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo on Microsoft number of employees?
It says they have 181,0000 employees.

Is that 181,000 employees instead? 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:44B9:E89F:FDDE:4AE2 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it, but I have major problems with the template itself which I will take to its talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For editors interested, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Big Tech. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

GitHub should be capitalized in the template
I think I don't have editing perms but the "H" in GitHub should be capitalized.



Newer Collage
Something that I've seen somewhat frequently in comments on this article suggests that more coverage needs to be included on non-American tech companies. In response, I've created a newer collage placed below which not only includes the traditional Big Five tech companies but other American and Chinese companies. Due to licensing restrictions, Alibaba and Ant Group can't be included, though. Something I've tried to do is relate the size of each logo to market capitalization, value, revenue, and/or the power of each company. What do y'all think? Is there a company here which should be here, or is there a company which should be excluded? Thanks,  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Big-Tech.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Big-Tech.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aerial Microsoft West Campus August 2009.jpg