Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disruptive technologies


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

List of disruptive technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure POV. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion is hasty and I can only speculate why such a rash response is contemplated.

To quote the rule name dropped by headbomb: "Achieving neutrality

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality

How is this list bias? Simply saying it is proves nothing.

Each listed technology demonstrably displaces, or would if/when completed displace, current centralized, top down controllable, systems. By definition that makes them disruptive technologies.

This list makes no value judgment of any kind. It is as neutral as a list of prime numbers. Innomen (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this information is sourced, so the recommended remedy for fixing bias in sourced information is rather irrelevant. Can you provide reliable sources that establish this concept of "disruptive technologies" under the definition you've given?  And can you provide reliable sources that in turn apply this concept to the listed "technologies"?  I don't even see a coherent definition of "technologies" at work here given the disparate subjects that are listed.  postdlf (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. All technologies are disruptive to varying extents. That makes it way too broad to be manageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes it is POV.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. POV is fine as long as it's WP:NPOV. I've added a reference and a new item to the list. I believe the reference establishes the lists' notability, although the notability of the individual items may still be suspect. Why not help out and add some sources yourself? 24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. (1) Most of the entries here amount to predictions of the future. Had WP existed in 1960 I can well imagine an editor adding "Nuclear power: Hydro, coal, oil, and natural gas electric plants." As it is, most all of the claimed "disrupted" items are alive and well and show no sign of immediate demise. Even wired telephony continues to be important in the face of wireless services, particularly in businesses (but in the spirit of cooperation I'm going to go ahead and add that text to the new entry). "Disruption" can only be judged historically, and then only by referenced sources. Of course well-referenced candidates can be found, but the effort would be better directed to working on articles about those technologies. (Perhaps those articles should be put into a "Disruptive technologies" category.) (2) Disruptive Technologies was the title of one of the fad business books of the 90s. (Whether or not the concept was or is valid is beside the point; the book was nevertheless one of the fad business books.) As such this list has a high risk of collecting hundreds of lines of drive-by ("oh! I've got one!") unreferenced cruft, just like the dozen or so already here. That is not the sort of editing Wikipedia should be encouraging. (3) Finally, we already have the Disruptive technology article. It has a list of its own. The context exists in that article to describe the concept and properly referenced, historically validated items can be added there. In fact, as it is, many of the items there carry cn tags. There is no need to have this article, with yet another list of cn-tagged items (or items that should be cn-tagged), as well. Jeh (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: there's a baby/bathwater distinction issue going on here. The list on Disruptive technologies should probably be deleted outright-- it's breeding OR, it does too much, and it's awkwardly placed. This list is also currently trying to do too much too, but it can be fixed without being deleted. The underlying list itself is demonstrably notable. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * * Comment: I fail to see why the list that only includes technologies that quite arguably really have disrupted older tech "should be deleted outright" while this one, which is so far about 95% speculative, "can be fixed." I would also like to see its notability "demonstrated" and a reason why that does not apply to both lists. Jeh (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, entirely unsourced, with no definition of what makes a technology "disruptive". This is more like some user's personal soapbox than an article. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. There is at least one source there now. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not entirely unsourced, but still nowhere near sourced enough. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete POV, per nom. --Crusio (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I wanted to give the authors a chance to improve the article, as it looked like they were surprised by the early AfD. But I'm not seeing any intent of improvement, and the only keep vote is asking us to do the impossible.  —  Soap  —  03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, and magnet for self-promotional cruft and fancruft. Besides, almost all new technologies that improve upon a previous one are disruptive, and we don't need a laundry list of such here. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't imagine this becoming a useful page. Anything could potentially be considered disruptive in some way, and we already have a list of everything. --scgtrp (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete about as POV as it gets. Anything could be disruptive, and the arguments presented by the keep votes makes it clear that there is no hope for this list. Might as well rename to 'list of technologies'. Arsenikk (talk)  17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Migrate to the article incubator. Completely verifiable and notable as a topic, but at the moment the article is very poor and is based on a single source's estimation of what is disruptive technology. If it's going to be acceptable, than it needs a lot of work, which would best be conducted in the article incubator or userspace. The "Examples of disruptive innovations" section in the Disruptive technologies article almost certainly needs to be moved to this list. Steven Walling  08:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the point of having two separate articles? The explanation of the concept can't go in the "List of" article (and this will more encourage additions of things that don't belong). But the list can most certainly go in the main article. Jeh (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A list and an article are not the same thing. The article exists to give an overview of the topic, while a list is meant to be a comprehensive catalog of major examples. It's the same concept as band articles versus discographies. The current list is already big enough to be split into a separate page, in my opinion. Steven Walling  21:04, 6 February 2011 (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.