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.

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 Computing. 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/Computing/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Computing

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. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo

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

According to the discussion on WP:DRV, allowed to renominate. The previous AFD reason was vague; all the votes were also vague, almost like someone is behind it according to the vandalism/advertisement/spam edits in the history of this article. I do not want to attack as I've made mistakes too. So I'll just state the facts. These links are broken/promotional: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] Black-listed: ^[13] ^[14]. Press release: ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] ^[19]. Wordpress: ^[20]. Plagiarism(same as wikipedia article): ^[21] ^[22].

Also, on WP:DRV, contributor who also participated in the previous AFD, suggested links that show up on Google after some promotional/spam sites. Addressing those links; Controversial information that's been removed (History of article), also points to more reason of deletion of the article. If it were reliable info, I would've edited it on the article. Controversial links: ^[23] ^[24] ^[25] ^[26]. Written with similar promotional content: ^[27] ^[28].

This shows, Geliyoo goes against WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Due to WP:G11 as the article does not have independent sources and is almost advertisement even if the article has been on Wikipedia for a while. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't really be specific in the first AfD because the nomination felt a bit more like a joke (inexperienced user who didn't give a proper reason to delete). I still think the sources I gave on DRV are enough to warrant notability. I'm going to add a controversy section (back? Didn't know it existed before) and trim the whole thing ("Founders" and "Projects launched" sections seem bs to me) to remove promotional content. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article trimmed to remove obvious promotional sentences. I agree with the nominator when he says that the article was advertisement. I also added back the criticism section removed by an IP 4 years ago and expanded on it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Styyx in the DRV. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: The page is really good and meets the required Wikipedia policy for a standard page Francisca po (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2021 (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.

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. JGHowes ^talk 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasm

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

Tagged with notability and unreferenced since 2011. I couldn't find any RS that support it. The sites in the external links section are just the tool's website and manuals, which doesn't establish notability afaik. (Some results on Google Scholar are about something else, which just shares the acronym.) -- LordPeterII (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. I was also not able to find any WP:RS that support the subject as written. Looking at the couple of incoming links, suggest the article is self promotion of a non-notable subject. Jeepday (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources no indication of notability Ratnahastin(Cont) (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After 19 years you find references everywhere, see https://qlforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3057&start=180 -- Polluks ★ 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list two best sources here? Pavlor (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki, a blog and a repo -- Polluks ★ 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All user submited content - not reliable sources per Wikipedia definition. Any reviews or news articles in online/published magazines with editorial staff would certainly help there.

Note: Above comment by @Pavlor

@Polluks: You would need a reliable source, for example a PC magazine like C't. Blogs, repositories and the like are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia (see WP:BLOGS). I agree VASM looks like an interesting utility that has been around for a while, but it never gathered much attention outside of its userbase. Therefore, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia article. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the book in the references section? By the way c't lost its quality years ago. -- Polluks ★ 18:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a self published book - essentially worthless for notability. Pavlor (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Self-published essentially means someone voices their opinion.

@Polluks: I must admit I am quite confused about your stance here. Your participation in some other AfDs and elsewhere suggests you are well-versed, but right now you sound like you don't know about WP:SELFPUB? Maybe c't is indeed not as good as it once was, I merely used it as an example. But you clearly can not build an article exclusively on self-published content. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, how about this Vbcc#Refecences? I know, the books don't explicitly mention the assembler, but it's part of the VB toolchain. -- Polluks ★ 19:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think vasm could be mentioned in the vbcc article and its own article redirected there (eg. using some short news on amiga-news.de as a reference for their connection). Pavlor (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to vbcc - it's part of the vbcc toolchain and lacks the RSes needed to support an independent article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2021 (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.

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. JGHowes ^talk 00:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pep/7

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and as far as I can see, this is not neglect but lack of notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple of references suggesting that it did actually exist so it is WP:V verifiable. But I don't see where it gained traction or notability. Fails WP:GNG for the computer related subject. Not that that is a similar usage Pep - 7 in non computing subjects that may or may not be notable. The article and incoming links are all computer related. Jeepday (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (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.

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 merge to Netflix. Consensus is to selectively merge some of the information, not all of it. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details of Netflix

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

What is this article about and how does it meet WP:GNG? We don't have any other article on Wikipedia that opens with Technical details of. This seems like a collection of random "technical WP:TRIVIA" about Netflix. Plausibly some of this might have been split off the main article as excessive detail, per WP:SUMMARY/WP:SPLIT, but if so, it didn't find a proper home. Maybe some of it can be rescued by being merged to some other article or even back to the main Netflix article, but as a stand-alone, this weird subarticle doesn't make much sense (List of excessive details removed from Netflix article that we could not figure out a better name for...). Since the lead of this article states that " Several technical development efforts were required to provide this service.", maybe this could be rewritten into history of Netflix, but at the same time, it's implies more of a prelude... what a mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt merit a seperate article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that some aspects (like maybe the public API or the Open Connect thing) might be worth keeping, but they could be easily included in the main Netflix article with 4-5 sentences. 80% of the article at hand are not of interest to the encyclopedia in my personal judgement. We don't need a separate article.--LordPeterII (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to main article. Most of this stuff has no reliable secondary source to attest that it belongs on WP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Right now it's little more than a WP:HOWTO. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, some of the technologies might be somewhat notable, independent of the business, but there is already chaos engineering for example. W Nowicki (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2021 (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.

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. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y.3800

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

Delete The Wikipedia Article is pure form of Advertisment and doesn't show Notability what so ever. See WP:Notability (web) and also WP:FAILN. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user Brascoian (talk) is an account that was created one day ago, the user page also doesn't actually exist it is an empty page Bquast (talk)

@Bquast: It doesn't matter if the account is created 15 years ago, if the account is doing vandalism and non-constructive edits, Its Wrong. Brascoian (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, however this is a fully valid article about the only networking standard in QKD that allows for multi-point networks. Vandalism seems like a very far stretch. The fact that you created a user page that is empty only further delegimizes this unsuported claim Bquast (talk)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bquast: It doesn't matter if my user page is empty we are talking about the Notability of the article not my user page. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I make out visit to this page in the limited time I have an I find the nom. is !voting. Its a valid keep albeit poorly referenced and I'm not wasting further time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, if you're not prepared to spend time on this then you shouldn't be commenting. I have spent some time and have not found significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please enlighten us as to where such coverage exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is for the closer to decide. This is a basket case of an AfD. The International Telecommunication Union is a specialized United Nations agency and stuff deserves respect. Djm-leighpark (talk)

@Djm-leighpark: User:Phil Bridger is right if you don't wanna invest your time in this case then don't. After doing more research i cannot found any reliable coverage. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brascoian: As the !voting nominator you have a vested interest in getting me from doing a more thorough investigation and I must AGF you think you are giving me great advice the actuality of the situation is that is a provocation to commit time and resource at this rather than other stuff. I will choose when and where and if to re-engage on this discussion. I may choose to do so this afternoon should the NHS choose to give a somewhat road distant pretty well housebound in an increasing Covid-19 (Delta?) hotspot now 14 weeks after his first jab ... if not I'm roping family resources to fork-lift him to vac. centre. And my families issues with Covid-19 are mildly significant but trivial to others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The suggestion that the article is an advertisement is absurd: it is not remotely promotional. Notability is less obvious, and at present I don't have time to do the necessary checking to decide that, but I may come back to it when I have more time. JBW (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an ITU standard, it's not advertisement. Also, I find the behaviour of Brascoian very suspicious. Supposedly a 10-day old account, they have been editing with extreme assiduity and like a very experienced user. Tercer (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This deletion was proposed by a sockpuppet of the blocked user Zaid Zayd. Hayleez (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Ahsanullah2015 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEMZ

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG; scanning the sources shows only a couple of articles from the same publisher that provides significant coverage. Multiple links listed are to YouTube, and a simple web search fails to garner significant media attention. From my understanding, multiple sources are needed to satisfy notability. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources aren't necessarily required in order for a topic to be notable, it is merely a good indicator that a topic is notable. I'm leaning towards a weak keep under the assumption that Motherboard is a satisfactory source. Mlb96 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although many of the sources already cited in the article aren't massively reliable, the two Motherboard articles and this Vice article might be enough to keep it. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:38, 4 July 2021 (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.

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 redirect to List of programming languages by type#Scripting languages. Nobody is for keeping this article with these sources, but there is reluctance to delete it outright. Redirection is a compromise that allows restoration if better sources are found. Sandstein 07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winbatch

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

Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability under our guidelines. One reference is cited and three external links are given but all four link to the vendor's website and own words, making them clearly primary. Searches for other useful sources on the web, books, news, newspapers and scholar turned up an old ad, a page where you could buy it and a history of it of unknown origin (though it looks suspiciously promotional, as if written by the vendor) and only a few trivial mentions, e.g., on sites merely listing various products. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some articles about Command Post (where this language originated) in the PC Mag magazine: 11 October 1988 p. 48 (review; 2/3 page), 16 January 1990 p. 145-146 (in cover story Best of 1989; half page).

Now Winbatch itself: PC Mag 24 October 1995 p. 40 (first looks; 1/4 page). Not much more. However, batch language in Norton Desktop for Windows should be the same as Winbatch (per PC Mag 24 September 1991 p. 36), so there could be some plausible redirect target (NDW is covered in the Norton Commander article, a phrase about its batch language could be added with the mention of Winbatch using the above reference). Pavlor (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is helpful. The first look at Norton Desktop has a section under the heading, "Norton's new batch language", with the claim that "Wilson Windowware's $70 shareware program Winbatch is identical to NDW's batch language, and WinBatch includes a macro program that's not available in The Norton Desktop for Windows", that's the only mention and it's so trivial I don't think it's particularly helpful in establishing notability. The first look at Winbatch 95 is more promising. This source is signed BS (presumable Barry Simon) and while it's only 5 paragraphs, it does include some clearly secondary opinions, e.g., a remark that "While more than adequate for basic operations, WinBatch 95 is unable to record anything more complicated than straight keyboard input." If a second, hopefully, better source could be found, I would be willing to retract my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my intention was to propose a redirect target as such a niche language may be of bordeline notability. There is also some coverage in DOSWorld, No 21, May 1995, p. 67 (3/5 of page: More power for Windows) - available on archive.org. Pavlor (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many Google Books hits, but they seem to be mostly ads for the product in 1990s PC mags. Nonetheless, there do seem to be a few more substantial mentions of the technology, e.g., this. I don't know if this coverage rises to the level to allow us to write a verifiable article on the product. I'm not convinced the Wilson Windowware product is the same as the Norton Desktop for Windows batch language: it would be a little surprising for Norton to use a shareware product in this way. I'm reluctant to delete given that this seems to be a product that has seen decades of use. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 00:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remesh Ramachandran

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

The article was created by stock, the person lacks in-depth coverage, and the achievements are not that remarkable. The article also contains sponsored articles without the byline and a few contributor articles. Madarphadar (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly promotional, and the references are not high quality. Three of the 7 references are the same piece from the Deccan Chronicle. The other 4 are of no use to meet GNG; one is a HuffPost contributor piece. Possibly WP:TOOSOON; there could easily be more coverage of this person in 10 years for work done after the present time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:47, 6 July 2021 (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.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impi Linux

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

This page was proposed for deletion in 2020, and was deleted without objection. Until the other day, when an editor objected to the deletion on my talk page. So I have undeleted the contested PROD and am nominating for deletion. Independent sources are lacking. WP:GNG does not appear to be established. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP due to lack of quality references demonstrating significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2021 (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.

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 merge to Gnutella2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FileScope

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. This software was abandoned in 2014 and lacked any sources reporting on it even when it was supported. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The subject is mentioned in various research articles, for example: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=19843 (PhD thesis), http://artemis.cslab.ece.ntua.gr:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/14783, http://dwl.kiev.ua/art/p2p/p2p-end.pdf The latter mentions that the subject is one of the most used clients for Gnutella2. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.KBAHT: Thanks for finding these links. Unfortunatelly, I don't think even one of them has "in-depth coverage" of FileScope. The second (Greek) and third (Russian) sources just list FileScope among many other programs, they do not have a single sentence fully dedicated to FileScope. I could not find download link for the first source, but abstract does not inspire confidene and even if this source was in-depth, it would not be sufficient basis to hinge notability on. Perhaps, there are more sources? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: I agree about the Spanish and the Greek sources. They basically mention that the subject is one of several other P2P clients supporting Gnutella2. The Russian source is saying that it's one of the most popular Gnutella2 clients. From the GNG point of view the subject is not notable, of course. However, the WP:NSOFT policies allow to include the software which is notable in a specific field, not necessarily in the general scope. If Gnutella2 is a notable P2P technology, then the most popular clients for Gnutella2 should be notable as well, based on WP:NSOFT. That's why I voted to keep the article. If my interpretation of WP:NSOFT is wrong or Gnutella2 is not notable, then I will not insist. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.KBAHT: Wikipedia articles need content useful to readers and supported by reliable sources. Right now, I don't see anything that could warrant more than two sentences about Filescope. As of now, FileScope article just creates confussion and does not convey much information. It has only one reference to filescope.com which is meant to support a vague claim that "the application is cross-platform but current builds only support running it under Microsoft Windows, but it is due to also run under Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unix-based platforms." So does it support only Windows or Linux/Mac OS/Unix? The Russian source just states (translated for convenience): "The most popular client programs for Gnutella2 are Shareaza, Kiwi, Alpha, Morpheus, Gnucleus, Adagio Pocket G2, FileScope, iMesh, MLDonkey." This content might be suitable for Gnutella2 article, but not really useful in FileScope.

If there is actual content which could be used in FileScope, I'd be glad to integrate it into FileScope myself if noone else wants to do it. If there is no supported content suitable for an article, logically, there can be no article. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: Thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with you. So, I'm withdrawing my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of this writing I don't see how this passes WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We don't have any reliable sources in English for the software, so I think the prospects for getting an adequate-quality article under this name are slight. I'm inclined to redirect/merge, in view of the fact that the article is referred to by many other articles, may be of interest to people researching history of file sharing, and has scholarly documentation in other languages. However, none of the filesharing articles I've looked to are really adequate targets. If we had a list of P2P file sharing applications, that would be the most obvious; as a distant second best, we could target Gnutella2#Clients. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: There are actually very few content articles with links to FileScope. Most of them actually use Template:Gnutella2, which includes FileScope. Therefore after FileScope deletion (if we decide to delete it) it would be trivial to remove all dead links to FileScope. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gnutella2#Clients - following the discussion on Dr.KBAHT's retracted !vote, that seems the most relevant place discussing the software. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Gnutella2#Clients.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2021 (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.

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. Sandstein 14:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson TO16 (prototype)

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

I suggest that this and the related models are not appropriate for separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? The article exists on the French Wikipedia, and although sources are not the best, they do exist. I could understand if you suggested a merge with the TO16 article though...

What other articles you wish to delete ? Again, they all exist on the French Wiki, and the have good sources (including manuals). 4throck (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomson TO16 seems obvious. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that and I'll merge it. 4throck (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe 4throck has created both Thomson TO16 (prototype) and Thomson TO16 in the last few days, and has now determined to place all information in Thomson TO16 making Thomson TO16 (prototype) a redirect. (Which puts this AfD in a bit of a weird state as Thomson TO16 (prototype) redirects to Thomson TO16 which does not have an AfD notice leaving people initially as a bit of a surprise. I personally see no advantage to a redirect Thomson TO16 (prototype). Although we ar out of procedure, and given the merge has happened, Id like to see the redirect Thomson TO16 (prototype) deleted (there's no attribution issues as 4throck was the author or the merged source) (Simplest by 4throck speedying {{Db-g7}} the thing) and closing this AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: This is because the merge(content copy) of Thomson TO16 (prototype) to Thomson TO16 has already been done by the creator (and sole contributor) of Thomson TO16 (prototype) (In good faith but whilst under AfD but "technically" without specific pre-consensus). I don't really see the need for a redirect from a search point of view as anyone would likely look for Thomson TO16 so probably best to dump in. The is a possibly a marginal case for use of the redirect it it has cats appropriate to a 68k processor intel of an Intel (I think I'm right in saying that from memory and my memory has better things to remember) but it doesn't and I'd still by !voting delete if it did. But do a redirect if necessary but closer please do something! Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2021 (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.

[1] ttp://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/52052-geliyoo-ceo-su-onemli-gelismeleri-linkedin-den-paylasti.html

[2] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/services.html

[3] ttp://www.sosyalsosyal.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo-com-roportaj

[4] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/about.html

[5] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/blog_post_4.html

[6] ttp://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/53169-mozilla-5-0-compatible-geliyoobot-1-0-http-www-geliyoo-com.html

[7] ttp://www.haber7.com/internet/haber/1047133-turk-motoru-geliyoo-rss-servisini-yayina-aciti

[8] ttp://haber.gazetevatan.com/turk-yapimi-arama-motoru-geliyoo-aktif/550678/43/Gundem

[9] ttp://www.reklamazzi.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo.134298.htm

[10] ttps://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694

[11] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/propaganda-in-istanbul.html

[12] ttps://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694

[13] ttps://www.newsbreak.com/news/2248424580812/a-young-entrepreneur-who-believes-in-creating-a-space-for-himself-in-the-industry-anuj-pradhan

[14] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/331822015_Geliyoo_Web_Browser

[15] ttp://marketersmedia.com/geliyoo-com-announces-a-new-all-in-one-search-site/3587

[16] ttps://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02

[17] ttps://www.haberler.com/geliyoo/

[18] ttps://ipsnews.net/business/2021/04/18/4-awards-given-to-hakan-atabas-at-once-in-the-fields-of-blockchain-and-finance/

[19] ttps://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02

[20] ttp://www.habertorial.com/2012/11/21/turkiyenin-en-kapsamli-link-arsivi-gmoz-geliyoo/

[21] ttps://clutch.co/tr/web-developers/istanbul?page=1

[22] ttps://plex.page/Geliyoo

[23] ttps://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201701191026837454-yerli-arama-motoru-google-sonuc/

[24] ttps://www.yenisafak.com/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-tepki-gordu-2598805

[25] ttps://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bir-turkiye-hikayesi-10-yil-calistik-googlea-yerli-rakip-yaptik-dediler-altindan-bakin-ne-cikti-661817

[26] ttps://www.sabah.com.tr/teknokulis/haberler/2017/01/19/bakanliktan-beklenen-geliyoo-arama-motoru-aciklamasi

[27] ttps://www.milliyet.com.tr/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-2380016

[28] ttps://www.hurriyet.com.tr/teknoloji/iste-yerli-arama-motorumuz-geliyoo-40338705

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]