Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange technology (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orange technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a neologism without notability. The article has plenty of references, but many of them don't mention "Orange technology" and of those that do few appear to be independent from professor Jhing-Fa and his university. AfD'd once before. Sjö (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

mcic2011: This is not neologism. Please search IEEE Xplorer database by using the keyword "icot" (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?newsearch=true&queryText=icot)

There is concept that is not limited to one university (National Cheng Kung Univeristy, Taiwan) only. The second annual conference already took place in Xian, China (please search "ICOT 2014" in Google).

More related reports are here.

The report at I-Shou University: http://www.isu.edu.tw/upload/81201/76/news/postfile_67371.pdf
The report at NATIONAL TAIWAN SCIENCE EDUCATION CENTER: www.ntsec.gov.tw/FileAtt.ashx?id=2220
The report at Tajen University: cs.tajen.edu.tw/ezfiles/26/1026/img/873/1.pdf
The report at National United University: http://www.nuu.edu.tw/UIPWeb/wSite/ct?xItem=90544&ctNode=9185&mp=23

Besides, the government of Taiwan (Ministry of Science and Technology) already supports the issue. For example,

http://scitechvista.most.gov.tw/zh-tw/Tags/C/10/1/K2FsaUNjbm5SWW9BLQ==.htm
http://scitechvista.nsc.gov.tw/zh-tw/Articles/C/0/1/10/1/1611.htm

There are many magazines reporting this concept in Taiwan. If convenient, please search Google and use machine translation [1]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from some very poorly cited papers by Wang et al., I'm not seeing any coverage of this WP:NEO in any WP:RS. I also see that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. -- 120.17.108.248 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The language should not be the key criterion to delete articles in Wiki. If it is convenient for you to search the orange technology in Traditional Chinese, you will find many citations. My humble opinion is English citations may be not the only criterion to judge whether an article is WP:NEO, and so is the area (i.e., countries). The concept is formed in Taiwan, as people though aging population deserves more attention.

Regarding the re-creation of the deletion of the previous page, that is because the concept itself is not wrong. Different wiki volunteers have different opinions. Some allow the article to be reserved. As time changes, some of new wiki volunteers raise this issue again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcic2011 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reviewing links posted by the anon.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This google search may also provide more guidance.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of those Google hits are relevant to the topic of the article -- they are simply unrelated uses of the phrase. -- 120.21.78.131 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that's just insulting to me. Of what benefit would it be to me (or anyone, really) to just post links to unrelated to the topic? I posted those links with the expectation and HOPE that someone would click on them to get more information on the topic. If I didn't know better, I would think you were joking.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 05:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What possible reason could you have to post links to companies that just happen to have "Orange Technology" in their name? Because that's what you did. The top 40 Google hits on your search were all of that nature. As far as I'm concerned, the absence of this topic in that list of Google hits suggests lack of notability more than anything else. -- 120.23.81.27 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. The Google hits that search brings up are utterly unrelated to the aubject of the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the concerns raised in the previous AFD have not been addressed - a Google Scholar search and the references provided still demonstrate that the term is primarily used by the academic who created it. Furthermore, the talkpage of the creator clearly demonstrates an interest in promoting the term, even when it goes against the feelings of the editing community. I think this source puts it best: "Prof. Jhing-Fa Wang Promotes Orange Technology". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Suriel1981. Basie (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.