Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeding edge technology


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Emerging technologies.  MBisanz  talk 20:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Bleeding edge technology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is marketing jargon and the article is basically just a definition, paired with what appears to be a synthesis in the "Cost and benefits" section. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Would it make sense to redirect to a section within emerging technologies, high tech or something like that? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge This is not a dictionary entry and it's not marketing jargon either, as the phrase has negative connotations. As there's at least one book on the subject, I'm not seeing any WP:BEFORE here.  And here's a Wiki take on on the topic too, FWIW.  The worst case here seems to be merger into some other page about technology risk.  See hype cycle, for example... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The book you say 'is on the subject' clearly isn't, judging by extracts that can be read online. It is about the impacts of technology on society, another subject entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I left a less than complimentary comment on the talk page of this dictionary definition of buzzword jargonising / synthesis just under 10 years ago, suggesting it be deleted. My opinion still stands. 'Bleeding edge technology' isn't a thing. It is (or was?) a phrase bandied about by people trying to impress each other. Wikipedia isn't a repository for 'words used in a specific order for marketing purposes', or for random examples of things contributors think such words-in-order might be applied to. Not even when accompanied by confusing metaphors involving warfare, horse racing, and albino pachyderms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect to wikt:bleeding edge, this is just a definition. I don't see a good Wikipedia redirect target. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge into emerging technologies, as Joy suggests. Artem.G (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.