Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public interest technology

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus indicates that the current state of the article is not egregious enough to bring out the explosives. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public interest technology[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:TNT might be warranted for this promotional article, or perhaps draftification is an WP:ATD here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, and I am currently researfching PIT, writing a book on it and looking at it from the POV of the SciPol Wikiedia project, there are a couple of books on it, an NGO network and a university network supoorting it, with lots of webpages covering it, and that's it, as it only started in 2020. What does not help is that the public Interest main article is crappy. My gut instinct based on that is to add a decent summary of PIT to the public interest main article and then delete the PIT article. Still, I'd like to think about it for a while. Johncdraper (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to allude to the fact that the public interest main article needs work and expansion, not that this article shoulde be deleted. There are several topics not covered on public interest other than the technology aspect.

As for the field being new, the growing work around it, specifically in the academic work, might be reason enough for it to continue growing on its own. Darrowlykos (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep - Variety of sources in the article are reliable and dedicated to the subject - so this is definitely a thing. As an umbrella article public Interest has a short summary and links here - which should be perfectly fine. Also - Johncdraper has done some cleanup since the nom. ResonantDis_tortion 20:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC
Keep per WP:RS and WP:GNG albeit the article seems to need an overhaul. For example, Bruce Schneier is not even mentioned or in the refs, he does a lot in this area using this term, e.g. see here. I don't think the article is promotional but haven't checked it thoroughly. It probably needs expansion as well as some restructuring, e.g. structuring by field of technology (e.g. Software, etc). Note that many sources use this terminology, however many about relevant topics use phrasing like public interest alternatives for important AI tools¹ despite also being related. It would be good to transclude a brief summary with a wikilink to the article at Public Interest but merging this article to there would be too detailed.

Prototyperspective (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2023 (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.