Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/List of emerging technologies - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

208:
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.--
499:
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.
207:
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
400:
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
498:
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
259:
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.)
149:
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.
166:
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.-
241:
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.- (
382:
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? -
542:
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 —
120: 627: 87: 82: 630:
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. --
91: 518: 74: 396:
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
378:
seems to suggest otherwise, and specifically allows uncontroversial additions to lists: references are only needed if an addition is controversial or if
337:. Spin-out and navigation lists do not really require separate references if the articles they list make a case for falling within their scope. - 274:
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?- (
78: 54: 449:
Maybe the intro to the page could list some criteria for inclusion, such as existence of an article that either is on the technology
306:
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.- (
17: 454: 639: 621: 601: 582: 562: 533: 508: 480: 462: 444: 418: 391: 370: 346: 319: 301: 287: 269: 254: 234: 217: 199: 180: 159: 140: 56: 70: 62: 656: 36: 556: 155: 655:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
458: 52: 504: 635: 617: 578: 476: 440: 414: 366: 315: 283: 250: 230: 226: 213: 176: 151: 136: 353:
Sorry, but that's just wrong. Everything has to be referenced in the same article according to
597: 569:
That it's useful or not isn't sufficient; that argument is specifically disallowed in AFDs.- (
529: 49: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
424: 375: 500: 387: 342: 195: 379: 631: 609: 570: 468: 432: 406: 358: 307: 297: 275: 265: 242: 209: 168: 128: 354: 553: 225:, Hulagutten is right, a proper definition of emerging technology should be defined. 593: 525: 427:
specifically says that you have to have references for the list. But there aren't
108: 467:
Even if it does, that any particular item meets it may be considered to be OR.- (
383: 338: 191: 293: 261: 292:
Certainly. Probably also possible to find sources for much of what is here.
545: 405:
a case where everyone will agree that such and such is or isn't emerging.- (
453:
or is the subject of a subsection of an article that provides citations???
649:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
127:
unreferenced, unverifiable, speculative, original research - (
401:
points towards this entire article being OR right now. This
115: 104: 100: 96: 628:
Comparison of relational database management systems
39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 659:). No further edits should be made to this page. 592:per all of the above. Great discussion, folks. 8: 519:list of Lists-related deletion discussions 423:In fact, quite contrary to what you say: 517:: This debate has been included in the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 24: 626:Wolfkeeper. Why don't you delete 425:Knowledge (XXG):LIST#Listed_items 1: 640:12:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 622:02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 602:01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 583:02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 563:22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 534:21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 509:18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 481:02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 463:19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 445:21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 419:21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 392:18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 371:15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 347:15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 320:02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 302:04:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 288:14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 270:04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 255:14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 235:13:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 218:10:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 200:08:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 181:15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 160:04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 141:23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 71:List of emerging technologies 63:List of emerging technologies 57:02:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 190:, but reference properly.-- 676: 652:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 376:The list guideline 44:The result was 536: 522: 667: 654: 548: 523: 513: 118: 112: 94: 34: 675: 674: 670: 669: 668: 666: 665: 664: 663: 657:deletion review 650: 559: 546: 384:Smerdis of Tlön 339:Smerdis of Tlön 152:ChildofMidnight 114: 85: 69: 66: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 673: 671: 662: 661: 645: 644: 643: 642: 608:Not a vote?- ( 605: 604: 586: 585: 566: 565: 557: 537: 511: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 421: 350: 349: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 238: 237: 220: 202: 184: 183: 163: 162: 125: 124: 65: 60: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 672: 660: 658: 653: 647: 646: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 606: 603: 599: 595: 591: 588: 587: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 567: 564: 560: 554: 551: 550: 549: 541: 538: 535: 531: 527: 520: 516: 512: 510: 506: 502: 497: 494: 493: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 465: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 447: 446: 442: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 399: 395: 394: 393: 389: 385: 381: 380:living people 377: 374: 373: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 351: 348: 344: 340: 336: 333: 332: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 304: 303: 299: 295: 291: 290: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 272: 271: 267: 263: 258: 257: 256: 252: 248: 244: 240: 239: 236: 232: 228: 224: 221: 219: 215: 211: 206: 203: 201: 197: 193: 189: 186: 185: 182: 178: 174: 170: 165: 164: 161: 157: 153: 148: 145: 144: 143: 142: 138: 134: 130: 122: 117: 110: 106: 102: 98: 93: 89: 84: 80: 76: 72: 68: 67: 64: 61: 59: 58: 55: 53: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 651: 648: 613: 589: 574: 544: 543: 539: 514: 495: 472: 450: 436: 428: 410: 402: 397: 362: 334: 311: 279: 246: 222: 204: 187: 172: 146: 132: 126: 50:Juliancolton 45: 43: 31: 28: 501:Brews ohare 455:75.42.20.61 205:Strong keep 147:Strong keep 632:hulagutten 614:Wolfkeeper 575:Wolfkeeper 473:Wolfkeeper 437:Wolfkeeper 411:Wolfkeeper 363:Wolfkeeper 312:Wolfkeeper 280:Wolfkeeper 247:Wolfkeeper 227:Jezcentral 210:hulagutten 173:Wolfkeeper 133:Wolfkeeper 526:• Gene93k 121:View log 594:Bearian 398:decades 88:protect 83:history 451:per se 192:Kozuch 116:delete 92:delete 561:: --> 403:isn't 355:WP:RS 294:Zodon 262:Zodon 119:) – ( 109:views 101:watch 97:links 16:< 636:talk 618:Talk 610:User 598:talk 590:Keep 579:Talk 571:User 552:< 547:G716 540:Keep 530:talk 515:Note 505:talk 496:Keep 477:Talk 469:User 459:talk 441:Talk 433:User 431:.- ( 415:Talk 407:User 388:talk 367:Talk 359:User 357:.- ( 343:talk 335:Keep 316:Talk 308:User 298:talk 284:Talk 276:User 266:talk 251:Talk 243:User 231:talk 223:Keep 214:talk 196:talk 188:Keep 177:Talk 169:User 156:talk 137:Talk 129:User 105:logs 79:talk 75:edit 46:keep 524:-- 521:. 429:any 48:. – 638:) 620:) 612:) 600:) 581:) 573:) 532:) 507:) 479:) 471:) 461:) 443:) 435:) 417:) 409:) 390:) 369:) 361:) 345:) 318:) 310:) 300:) 286:) 278:) 268:) 253:) 245:) 233:) 216:) 198:) 179:) 171:) 158:) 139:) 131:) 107:| 103:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 81:| 77:| 634:( 616:( 596:( 577:( 558:C 555:· 528:( 503:( 475:( 457:( 439:( 413:( 386:( 365:( 341:( 314:( 296:( 282:( 264:( 249:( 229:( 212:( 194:( 175:( 167:( 154:( 135:( 123:) 113:( 111:) 73:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Juliancolton


02:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
List of emerging technologies
List of emerging technologies
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
delete
View log
User
Talk
23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight
talk
04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
User
Talk
15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Kozuch
talk

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.