Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Computing. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing.

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/Computing/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Computing[edit]

Adrianus Warmenhoven[edit]

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

Fails WP ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not enough secondary coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4Dwm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this fails WP: N. There was a previous nomination in 2021 that failed on the basis that there are mentions of the software in Google Books and Google Scholar. However, these sources are either not independent (published by Silicon Graphics) or are not in-depth (passing mentions in a book chapter or a paper). HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IRIX: no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri Vivekanandan[edit]

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

BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Computing, and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recently, the draft was declined by me. Upon my further check, I couldn’t find anything other than interviews or her own words in articles. These sources are not in-depth and can’t establish notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 04:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had performed an BEFORE prior to S0091's draftification, and believe it very likely that the subject is not able to meet BASIC. With the history, I am also convinced this article is likely an undisclosed advertisement. Honestly I'd call it borderline A7, but its probably easier to let this run and deal witb future creations via G4. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speech Prof —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page on this living person is poorly sourced with no significant coverage to consider the subject notable to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same article creator and same issues, I'm unable to locate sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. I was unable to find any non-trivial coverage of the subject via reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko Gear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff pice" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?
We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XML appliance[edit]

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

Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iligan Computer Institute[edit]

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

Private school that may not be notable due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No good hits on GNews and GNews Archives. No good alternative redirect target as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endocentric environment[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find any sources that are not simply mirrors of this article. Even if there is demand for information on the term, we obviously need sources to back up the claim of what this term means. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CombinedX[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, Norway, and Sweden. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the delete tag and since I am Swedish, I thought to give my opinion. There is a Swedish Wikipedia page for it, so I will look at that and check sources. Atlassian (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still reading Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and checking how it's done on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_22 as well as on other dates. Atlassian (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Ok, this is a clear keep.

There already is a great explanation on the talk page. I will soon add some comments of my own. Atlassian (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building on the explanation that's already present on the talk page:

This is a publicly traded company. You and I and anyone else can literally become shareholders tomorrow or the day after. This alone is notable.
Furthermore, as a publicly traded company, it is legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports. Those reports are frequent and very detailed, the latest I could find was 128 pages long. This is not your run-of-the-mill routine coverage. This is much more detailed than a newspaper article.
Here is some information from Bolagsverket and Swedish Economic Crime Authority about penalties and prison sentences associated with information delays and false information in reporting – [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
I could also find multiple reliable, independent, secondary and significant-coverage sources as specified Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Here are three examples from Swedish business magazine Affärsvärlden: [6], [7], podcast analysis. And there are many others.
Also, the comment left on the talk page is accurate in saying that there are many many less notable companies on Wikipedia.

Atlassian (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Reference Library[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[8][9]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data-driven astronomy[edit]

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

This appears to be either or both a PhD project proposal, for a MA or Part II. It describes what will be done as part of an apparently funded proposal. Since there already is a more general page on the wider topic at Astroinformatics, I see no rationale for this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Computing. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the two topics appear to be similar sub-fields of data science, so perhaps a merge of Data-driven astronomy and Astroinformatics is in order? It appears notable. Praemonitus (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be a mix of general discussion about a field of research and a description of a specific project. A merge with astroinformatics as Praemonitus suggests could be reasonable, as could a merge with Galaxy Zoo. As the article is only a couple of weeks old, I think the best approach would be to draftify and allow the author to refocus this article so it is more clearly about a specific notable subject, or to move relevant parts into existing articles. Mgp28 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Astroinformatics per my original proposal. No deadline, as usual. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VINAStech[edit]

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

This article seems like a WP:PROMO, most of the sources are not in depth like confirming their clients. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in IRS appears to be approximately zero. Being a brochure doesn't help here either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it does fail WP:NCORP lacks sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurrealDB[edit]

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

An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vili talk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.

However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vili talk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.

Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [10] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:

ORGCRIT assess table

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material	– Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no	Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV	Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail	First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions	Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Literally a press release		Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		Leaning no
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs.	Short circuit	Blogs aren't considered RS	At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement	Same as above
Citations to their own website
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Interview with no secondary content
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	probably not, but not assessed	No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19. (Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)		Dubious	... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	This is a press release
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17.		...
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19.	Sponsored	Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9.		At least this one is an RS
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken).	– Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here	Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick	– Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here	3.2 is fine	—
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?".		Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6.			Passing mention

I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDIV[edit]

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

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Websites. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for Jay, Shhhnotsoloud, and Tavix, who participated in the previous discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (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 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PackCC[edit]

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

page does not seem to meet the nobility criteria and most content is copied from the GitHub page; the author of the page is also the creator of the software Howrued (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the page content is encyclopedic enough even if it was derived from GitHub. Whether to be copied or not is irrelevant to the argument unless it violates copyrights. Next, the page has been supported at least by several editors, even if it might have been problematic that it was created by the software developer. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the support of the page from other people has mostly been adding links. i think that it being entirely derived and created by the developer (you) stands as a violation of WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO. imo, having it in the Comparison of parser generators is sufficient. Howrued (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, i think it's a bit dishonest that you didn't mention that you are both the developer of the software and the creator of the page in your reply. Howrued (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The points I'd like to say are:

The improvement of the page by others is a very important fact that proves the page interests several users.
Since there are several voluntary editors, there should be much more viewers.
This page should attract users because the editors wanted to improve the page content even if the changes were quite small.
There have been slight changes because the page content has almost no critical defect.

The facts and rational inferences above justify the existence of the page. Arithy (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"i think it's a bit dishonest": it's irrelevant to this argument. I expect you to argue more logically. [ I'm honest because I use the identical user name between GitHub and Wikipedia ;-) ] Arithy (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The additional point I'd like to say is:

We should see the current status, not the origin.

Arithy (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as i mentioned before, articles being created by the person who made the thing in question is enshrined in policy as being bad. even if there was minor housekeeping, it doesn't change the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in the article and it otherwise doesn't really establish any notability. Howrued (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the first paragraph lists features, but i don't think having those features simply grants it notability. if that were true, anyone could make a parser generator with those features and then immediately make a wikipedia page for it. Howrued (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just your sentiments regarding software.

According to your criterion, no one can create any pages. Is it really what Wikipedia should be? Arithy (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't really understand what you mean by this. my criterion (and wikipedia's)?isn't that nobody should create pages—it's that people shouldn't create pages for their own personal projects that lack any verifiable sources nor any claims for notability. Howrued (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not say prohibition, just say difficulty to guarantee the content objectivity. I think it is already guaranteed by other users.

By the way, I cannot understand that you continue to insist on attacking the page using account suddenly created few days before. I cannot help wondering if you have other intention. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i understand your concern, and i will not be dishonest and say that the primary reason i created this account wasn't to make this afd. i do not, however, have anything against you personally. i just think that the article violates the aforementioned policies, which are grounds for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON. Howrued (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article contains a single reference, which makes no mention of packcc and only says that packrat parsers in general can support left-recursion. Howrued (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the general notability guidelines. The only source provided does not even mention it. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's creator wrote a lengthy argument in favor of keeping the article that concluded with "I expect [the nominator] to argue more logically". Ironically, nothing they wrote logicially addresses the question of notability. Like StreetcarEnjoyer, I couldn't find any significant coverage.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find that this has any significant coverage. Does not seem to meet general notability criteria. Mgp28 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS[edit]

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices, A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories, Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level, DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage, TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion, and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing[edit]

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [11] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[12] [13] [14] and [15] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [16], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [17], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [18], [19], [20], [21]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (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.