Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emerging 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of emerging technologies

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

unreferenced, unverifiable, speculative, original research - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Citations need to be added, but otherwise this is a very notable listing of notable emerging technologies (lots of bluelinks). I think it's a terrific article with lots of potential that would be a shame to lose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any of the current article even can be referenced properly as an emerging technology. If the article is kept, I can still remove all unreferenced content, which is the whole article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but reference properly.--Kozuch (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I believe the controversy over this article is related to the unclear definition of what is an emerging technology. One could consider naming it something like. "List of new technologies that are not in widespread use, but where prototypes or successful trials (for treatments) have been created" (the title should, though be shorter:) ). The pressure for references would hence be reduced as the referenced wiki-articles would need to state that a prototype has been made or else the technology should be deleted from the list. Another list could be named "list of diffusing technologies", which would contain technologies whose wiki-articles state that the technologies are new and gaining market-share over alternative technologies.--hulagutten (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Hulagutten is right, a proper definition of emerging technology should be defined. Jezcentral (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion is based on the fact that none of it is referenced, and it doesn't seem that any of it even can be referenced to be an emerging technology. That these are emerging technologies is OR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course material of this nature can be referenced - a quick google with a term like "emerging technology" turns up plenty of conferences, magazines, etc. (Whether these specific items can be referenced is another matter.) Zodon (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that it's possible to write an entirely new article on this topic that is actually based on reliable sources?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Probably also possible to find sources for much of what is here. Zodon (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's certain, then you can do it, right now, and then the AFD will die. Otherwise it's not certain, because nobody has done it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Spin-out and navigation lists do not really require separate references if the articles they list make a case for falling within their scope. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's just wrong. Everything has to be referenced in the same article according to WP:RS.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The list guideline seems to suggest otherwise, and specifically allows uncontroversial additions to lists: references are only needed if an addition is controversial or if living people are involved, obviously not an issue here. Lists are also allowed for development purposes including listing of articles yet to be created.  How are you going to "reference" those? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what's an emerging technology? How do I know if scramjets are considered an emerging technology? I mean scramjets have been messed around with for decades and to date the only flight articles ended up a smoking wreckage in the sea. Fusion, even longer, about 70 years or more. What exactly is emerging about them? In the absence of a RS saying that they are being considered so, it doesn't seem to me that this is in any way unarguable, and that to me points towards this entire article being OR right now. This isn't a case where everyone will agree that such and such is or isn't emerging.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, quite contrary to what you say: LIST specifically says that you have to have references for the list. But there aren't any.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the intro to the page could list some criteria for inclusion, such as existence of an article that either is on the technology per se or is the subject of a subsection of an article that provides citations??? 75.42.20.61 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it does, that any particular item meets it may be considered to be OR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This page is primarily a navigation page, and is useful mainly for a reader wanting to discover what range of technologies are being examined in a given area. The links then guide the reader to a more detailed examination, which would seriously detract from the utility of the page if it had to explain and reference every item. Disputes may arise over whether something should be listed or where it should be classified, but these should be settled on a case by case basis, and should not be a basis for dumping the entire page. As mentioned above, a clear statement of how a technology qualifies to be listed would help with such disputes. Brews ohare (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs clear definition of emerging technology and some refs (not all lists need as many refs as long the supporting articles are well ref'd), but otherwise a useful, verifiable list &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That it's useful or not isn't sufficient; that argument is specifically disallowed in AFDs.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per all of the above. Great discussion, folks. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a vote?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper. Why don't you delete Comparison of relational database management systems too? It has maybe 10 citations and hundreds of uncited claims. I really think you would increase the quality of wikipedia (and make lots of people happy) if you did. --hulagutten (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2009 (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.