Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Rigaku (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)

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. A search of Newspapers.com, Google and JSTOR revealed no notability. Ldm1954 commented that "They are a famous maker of x-ray equipment." Fame is not the same as notability and nothing in the sources indicates that they are more widely known than dozens of other multinational technology companies.
— User:Julian in LA 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My involvement is merely procedural; I am neutral and offer no opinion or further comment (beyond that Ldm1954 (talk · contribs)'s comments are in the context of declining a PROD). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Technology, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Dictionary (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)

Could not find any sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damco Solutions (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 IT services company fails to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP, since I cannot locate any substantial coverage to fulfill notability standards. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, India, Haryana, United States of America, and New Jersey. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent significant coverage, a PR induced article. - The9Man ^Talk 06:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing I can find meets WP:ORGCRIT. Note that the Forbes references (at least the links to the ones working) fall under WP:FORBESCON. The rest is routine coverage, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Intelligence (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)

There is inadequate sourcing to establish notability for this concept, which can probably best be summed up (albeit rather uncharitably) as "big picture LinkedIn-style thought leadership"—or, even less charitably, it is a thing someone made up but for business executives.

The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

The Hesham Allam source cites a wholly different source for an idea referred to as 'living intelligence' (namely someone called Anna Bacchia) that predates the FTSG/Webb/Jordan formulation. It is also mentioned only in passing—not significant for the purpose of the notability guidelines.

The Robitzski source predates the invention of the concept, and thus does not do anything to establish notability.

The 'Analytics Insight' source looks extremely unreliable. According to their bio, the author of the piece "excels at crafting clear, engaging content", apparently. Last week, on Friday, they produced seven articles for 'Analytics Insight' in one day, on topics as wide-ranging as staying at the top of Google search results, knowing the difference between OLED and QLED televisions, the best travel credit cards, discounts on Android phones, smart mattress covers, and using AI to generate video. An optimist might commend this industrious work ethic; cynics might draw the conclusion that this feels like a low quality content farm (the massive flashing adverts for ropey looking cryptocurrencies don't help).

The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing.

The Inc. article by Aiello does look to be reliable, and independent, and provides significant coverage, but probably isn't enough alone as "multiple sources are generally expected" (WP:GNG).

There was another source listed which I removed. It's generated by Perplexity AI. Literally, just AI generated text. It's here (and on the Wayback Machine, but the overuse of JavaScript makes that version unusable). It is pretty much a case study of AI confabulation.

The AI generated text reads: Amy Webb and Gary Marcus, two prominent figures in AI research and forecasting, offer contrasting perspectives on AI's trajectory in 2025. Webb predicts a convergence of key technologies, including AI, biotech, and advanced sensors, leading to what she terms "living intelligence". At this point, there is an inline footnote which points to an article titled The great AI scaling debate continues into 2025 from a website called The Decoder. Said article does not discuss "living intelligence" or Webb. The Decoder article talks about Gary Marcus and AI scaling, so the AI generated source is at least half right. To be fair, the Perplexity source does go on to point to a podcast interview which... might establish notability if you squint a bit.

So, in terms of sourcing that establishes notability, we have an Inc article and a handful of podcasts/interviews. But the convergence of AI-generated text and the somewhat spammy promotion of futurist/thought leadership suggests this should be deleted (or possibly merged/redirected into Amy Webb). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Technology. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Also pinging User:BD2412 as the AfC reviewer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as, indeed, "a thing someone made up but for business executives." Honestly, anything made with "sources" from Perplexity or other slop machines should be deleted on moral grounds. They're the opposite of reliable; using them is by definition not being here to build an encyclopedia, and the results should be treated accordingly. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per last user, WP:MADEUP, and the use of AI-generated sources, which is a flaming red line for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep or restore to draft. I was pinged to this discussion and am mulling this over carefully. I don't think that Amy Webb being the coiner of the term is disqualifying of a source for which she is the author. It's not like she's selling "Living Intelligence" as a product for her enrichment. She is an academic in the field, and her opinions in the field carry weight. I have never seen Harvard Business Review questioned for its reliability. With this along with the Inc. article, I would expect that if this is a notable concept (and the article describes something that certainly should be), then additional sources may be found. BD2412 T 01:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this. Two points: the Harvard Business Review do publish sponsored content on behalf of corporate partners. Some of which is emabrassingly mediocre research that would get a failing grade as student coursework. The source in question doesn't seem to fall into this category, thankfully.

  Also, at risk of being excessively cynicial, the thinktank/thought leadership world are selling a product. Taking a vague trend of New Stuff, and self-publishing a report that gives it a label is exactly what goes on in futurist/thought leader circles in order to promote yourself so corporations and others will pay you for consulting and speaking gigs etc. I drew an analogy with WP:MADEUP becuase hand-wavy futurist thought is often "a PDF of a thing I made up on my own website" rather than getting subjected to peer review. Whether the idea actually is notable is a question for other people to determine, hence why our notability guidelines look to independent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Kola-Ogunlade (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:BIO. Sources for this page largely fall into two categories:

• Non-WP:SIGCOV sources where the subject is simply quoted [1] [2] [3] or his name is mentioned as winning a prize [4] [5].
• Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as organizations where the subject has worked or spoken [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

The best source is this article [11] but it is setting off promotional red flags for me. Why is a South African newspaper writing a profile of a Google West Africa employee with no connection to the country? Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and Nigeria. Astaire (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Technology, Netherlands, and United States of America. 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]

• Delete: TOOSOON, and we have no way of knowing how important this is or isn't. And the article doesn't explain who the Rutte person is, so it doesn't even show why Trump messaging this person is important. Just too much wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Or it mentions Rutte in passing in the second paragraph, when it should be in the lead paragraph with links and things. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draftspace / Draftify, agree it is too soon but that may change, useful to keep it somewhere until more is known. Encoded  Talk 💬 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that it would be useful to retain it but it doesn't need to be live Dflovett (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPECULATION. This is all based on what might happen based on a private message published by Trump. This seems like a Trump rumor, deliberately leaked just to see the “flattery diplomacy”. It was not an "oops" slip-up event. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 The Hague NATO summit. It is already there and these messages are linked to the event. Dajasj (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Textbook example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The capitalization is an unlikely search term so a redirect doesn't make sense. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is something to be said for any resolution. Hence the opinions here are all over the place. Likewise, still thinking this over. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article doesn't look so important to have an independent page; at most can be merged, of course I think so. 110 and 135 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Technology, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Li et al., "Alleviating Action Hallucination for LLM-based Embodied Agents via Inner and Outer Alignment," PRAI 2024
• Melo et al., "Machines that halt resolve the undecidability of artificial intelligence alignment", Sci. Rep. 2025
• Safron et al., "Value Cores for Inner and Outer Alignment", IWAI 2022

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]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• 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: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. 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]

edit: I'm also fine with redirecting to AI alignment as below - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 28 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]
  • "emerging concept" places it squarely as WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Inner alignment is an urgent topic because it addresses a core safety challenge in the development of powerful AI systems, especially those based on LLMs or other ML techniques. Southernhemisphere (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[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.

• AI is a pervasive risk that demands comprehensive planning. The inherent flaws that lead to these risks, including the very subject of this page, are a critical part of this conversation and cannot be dismissed as fringe. Foxtrot620 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You have just posted a massive forum-style discussion on the general topic of AI to an AFD about a specific article, and you're not even talking about the article at hand. I have not removed your text, but I have collapsed it so you don't flood out discussion on the AFD. Please don't do this again - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I eagerly await you bringing the solid RSes on inner alignment - David Gerard (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The existence of references on Inner Alignment have no bearing on the validity of AI as a general risk, global or otherwise, which is what this comment was about. Foxtrot620 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This page is about a specific article. It is expected that AFD discussions will be about the article - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Foxtrot620 you make a number of important points about AI risks and the potential utility of AI-specifice risk management tools.

  This discussion is much more parochial: do we yet have sufficient independent, reliable sources to support a Wikipedia article on inner alignment. The concern expressed by others is that, no, we don't. The idea may have merit but the scientific community hasn't adequately analyzed yet. Perhaps this will A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The existence of references is central to whether this article is appropriate to Wikipedia. I personally think the main risk of the technology we call "AI" presently is its massive climate inpact but, reading the article and its discussion of bot map navigation and green arrows, I thought "yeah, this might be the basis for an interesting article." But if the sources don't exist to our standards yet then the article should not exist yet. Simonm223 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a brief notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Outer alignment, which was sourced to a similar combination of blog posts, forum posts and some guy's web site as this article was, and now has only the Science Reports link. We are seriously lacking in RSes that either of these is a thing outside a WP:FRINGE blog network - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @David, I have to take exception to the use of "fringe" with this topic. Much of the material on the topic of AI inner- and outer-alignment is self-published on a couple of particular forums and arxiv.org. That doesn't mean this work is fringe. The field is moving very rapidly.

  Yes, arxiv.org papers are not peer-reviewed and we don't cite them but other papers have cited one arxiv.org alignment paper 354 times.The contributors to that paper were from Peking University, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Carnegie Mellon University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the University of Southern California -- hardly fringe-y places.

  The two relevant forums are the Alignment Forum and LessWrong. The Alignment Forum restricts posts to a group of selected AI experts. Peer-reviewed AI papers cite specific posts on these forums.

  Our guidelines may limit the use of some of this material but that doesn't mean this topic or its community of researchers are fringe. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia articles are not for "emerging concepts" but only for topics that "the outside world has already taken notice of". Bishonen | tålk 12:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  Bishonen, the cutting-edge stuff is either published on arXiv.org or else posted on the Alignment Forum. The topic has emerged, though -- there are peer-reviewed papers that show up 1-3 years later. I've added several to the article. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

@David Gerard, I know - you already said that. I asked about your reading of the other two. Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we have several other AI alignment articles. The main one is AI alignment. There are also mesa-optimization, alignment faking and outer alignment. I'm confident we have enough reliable sources now to establish notability but would we better served combining this and the outer alignment article into the main article which already mentions both. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support building them all into one "huge" comprehensive article, then as sections build up to be weighty enough, they can fork out again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I looked through the list of sources referenced by the current version of the article. Here are my thoughts on them:

---

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]

I agree - this is good stuff, Elestrophe. At this point, I think many would say that the topic is notable but the article is trash.

The next question is what do we do? I go back to the question I raised above. Normally in an AfD, the response is that deletion ≠ cleanup but I’m not sure that’s the best approach here. Are we better off merging this with the existing main article, AI alignment? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm fine with folding what stuff here can be backed up properly into that topic and redirecting this topic there - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to AI alignment, per David Gerard. There is absolutely no reason for this to be a separate page, and while I understand the article creator finds this to be an interesting topic, that does not mean a separate page based on SPS is not an appropriate way to cover it. Even if it is split out from AI alignment in the future, which I find unlikely in the near term, it should most likely be covered in the same place as Outer alignment unless the size is truly unreasonable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Inner alignment deserves a separate article because it addresses a distinct, technically complex subproblem of AI alignment. Misalignment between learned and intended goals can lead to deceptive or unsafe behavior. As AI systems scale, such failures could escalate catastrophically. Southernhemisphere (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. [17][18]), but nothing substantial. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 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) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Michigan. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of potentially useful sources linked to help but would love a bit more discussion before closing this out. Relisting in hopes of getting a bit more attention, will see if I can ping some noticeboards to take a look as well..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete - what are you suggesting should happen? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the nom that the term is rarely used. It refers to the effect in which an emf is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. (see [19] and [20]). It is usually discussed in electrodynamics textbooks under the topic Faraday's law of induction. Given this, I propose that we merge to Faraday's law of induction, and create a redirect from the more common term, transformer emf, to that page. The coverage at the target article should also be expanded. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added discussion about transformer emf to Faraday's law of induction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transformer. There is nothing useful in this article to merge, it is high-school physics without sources. The name is not in common use, and I suspect is a literal translation from another language. It seems to have been created much earlier in WP history when the policy about what to include and verification was more open. I would also be OK with a simple delete, as a Google search mainly brings up pages on Transformer-syle robots. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transformer, as there is not any brilliant prose or even cited content worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Technically, transformer seems like a wrong target. In those sources that care to define "transformer effect", e.g. this, it includes any effect from changing magnetic flux to a stationary circuit, similar to transformer emf. In particular, it includes the interaction between a circuit and a moving magnet, which is unrelated to what happens in a transformer. That's why I suggested Faraday's law of induction above. If we decide that it generally does not have a well-defined meaning, then we should delete it or link to Electromagnetic induction, which is the broadest article in the topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine with either of those as redirect destinations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Inductance#Mutual inductance, where Mutual induction also redirects. In 2006 the first sentence of the first version of this article read The Transformer Effect, or Mutual Induction, describes one of the processes by which an electromotive force (e.m.f.) is induced. So it was meant as an article on what we usually refer to as mutual induction. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Technology, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a great number of articles published in respectable and trustworthy sources to assert the subject's notability. WP:NCORP is a meeting. LKBT (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are number of articles published but that doesn't justify the notability of the article. This company page is totally written in a promotional manner and doesn't have anything which is notable worthy like awards.Almandavi (talk) 09:07, 25 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 | 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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, the only topic in here would be the controversy its office construction project appeared to cause, which is very WP:MILL. As it stands, this page is a promo created by an SPA. FalconK (talk) 03:07, 19 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]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's very informative. 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep: 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) — 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

• Merge: We can probably combine all of this into Online piracy. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:10, 8 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]

• Merge into Online piracy. May be informative but Wikipedia is not a guide. मल्ल (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'd argue that this does comply with WP:NLIST. Release types are defined standards complied with by major scene groups - this topic is notable enough to have several papers written that discuss release groups and standards. I absolutely agree with you that new sources need to be found and that this article needs to be rewritten, but deletion isn't the way to go and I don't see a merge as able to do it justice. Manwithbigiron (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)— Manwithbigiron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Agreed; keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that all of this should be somewhere - my main concern with merging would be that this would put undue weight on film piracy. It's probably one of the most common things people think of when they think of online piracy, but it's not the only version. Plus if someone were to find sourcing for the various other versions of say, online piracy of books, music, video games, and so on, sections of this nature would quickly overwhelm the article. I agree in that it's probably better to keep this stuff on a separate page, to keep the main online piracy page a bit tighter. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:15, 14 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]

  I myself made an article on video game piracy, I assume an article like that would go along similar lines. However, merging would be untenable due to the unreliability of the information here - it would be equally as unreliable there. You're better off doing research in books and news rather than trying to find things that already exist on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 1 July 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]

I think Movie piracy is the ideal merge target. As for the start... I guess having the current content of the release types article as a "Types" section in the Movie piracy article could be a start.
Online piracy is balanced enough and moderately long already. I don't think it's good to have 4 screens worth of its content concentrate on movies. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin I feel that many here are mischaracterizing the information in this article as mergeable in an effort to have the page kept. To be clear, it would require a 99% rewrite from scratch. Almost nothing is mergeable on the page, as it is unreliably sourced or original research, as I said in the deletion nomination. The rationale is not just one of non-notability, but WP:NOT. Furthermore, if pirated movies are overall notable, the place for that is starting a new article at movie piracy with none of the existing info here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If so, I would encourage instead a discussion of comparison listicles with "arbitrary" criteria as a whole, as comparison listicles are dominated by them. They have been voluminous and the status quo for too long to just delete one by one. I tried starting one at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Software comparison table listicles after seeing this nomination bu tit has seen little participation. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I should have looked into the sources already on the page a bit more before my previous comment (note that it was not a !vote) as they are primarily primary sources that I would say have questionable reliability. I think someone that wants to write the article about movie piracy, which definitely is notable on its own might want to save a copy of this to refer to, but all of the interesting information needs a source to be found first before it can be used anyways. Moritoriko (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]