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

Pixhawk

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

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's lots of results in Google Books and Google Scholar. None of is enough? I could not get access to many of them, so I couldn't fully assess. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The main issue here seems to be lack of independent sources covering the standard. There are quite a few academic references, but the only highly cited papers seem to be the original publications on the standard. If someone finds better sources, ping me and I'll likely shift my vote as it looks like there is some research on this for use in military (i.e. Ukrainian) drone programs. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James A. D. W. Anderson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James A. D. W. Anderson (3rd nomination)

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

Mathematical crackpot with no meaningful impact on the field per WP:ACADEMIC, and no coverage in popular press since initial 2006 spotlight. Academic discourse on "transreal arithmetic" is mostly WP:SELFPUB, barring a couple of papers published in non-mathematical journals. Fishsicles (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, he does appear to be a crackpot. That might not be sufficient reason for deletion if he had a significant influence on mathematics, but as far as I can see he doesn't. Athel cb (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other fields, mathematics is much more tolerant of what would normally be labelled "crackpots" - rejecting an established axiom or theory usually means building a contrasting theory, which can be mathematically interesting in its own right. (WP:CRACKPOT's term for this would be "alternative theoretical formulation".) That said, "transreal arithmetic" has absolutely not developed into a theory of any interest to mathematicians, which means I'm more than comfortable applying the label.

I think a particularly useful point of contrast is inter-universal Teichmüller theory, which also makes dramatic claims that are (in the opinion of many number theorists) not properly substantiated, but remains of significant academic interest for its potential applications. "Transreal arithmetic" has attracted no such attention, and the only one to claim applications is Anderson himself. Fishsicles (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is indeed the third nomination of this article, but it is the first under this exact title: the article was first sent to AfD in 2006 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) (which closed with no consensus), and the second nomination in 2008 was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (computer scientist) (which closed as keep). (While James Anderson (mathematician) ended up getting deleted in 2006, that was at RfD after the article was renamed shortly after the first AfD.) No opinion on the current nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Mathematics, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth a page and it is more about Transreal arithmetic than anything else. It is a transreal page, in a sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My concern is more basic than the issues raised above: there are whole paragraphs in a BLP that are unsourced. I'd be willing to cut down the article to a stub, but that would disrupt the discussion. Not sure how to proceed. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Anderson has been trying to market his ideas for transreal arithmetic and "Perspex machines" to investors. He claims that his work can produce computers which run "orders of magnitude faster than today's computers".[7][12] He has also claimed that it can help solve such problems as quantum gravity,[7] the mind-body connection,[13] consciousness[13] and free will.[13]" So, first of all, yes, that could be straight out of Underwood Dudley's book. Second, Anderson made one tiny news/blogosphere splash nearly two decades ago, and there's nothing else to go on. This merits maybe two lines in whatever article talks about mathematical crankery, not a whole biography. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is deleted, this redirects should too, unless there's a bot that does it:

Perspective simplex Transreal number Transreal numbers Perspex machine Transreal Computing Ltd Transreal arithmetic James Anderson (computer scientist) Nullity (number)

and the link in James A. Anderson — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The past discussions are old but then so are the sources on which the article is based, so I think we can let their decision on the value of those sources stand. As for what he might have done since then, I don't see enough in Google Scholar to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF and I didn't find any recent news about him that might provide new evidence of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2025 (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.

Extended reality

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

Taking to AFD as a courtesy for further consensus. Whether this topic is genuinely distinct from virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality has been disputed by an editor. The editor has attempted to make WP:BOLD mergers of this page into augmented reality, under an argument that the topic of "extended reality" is only synonymous with augmented reality, and that "pages should represent real things, rather than concepts that only exist in academia". ViperSnake151 Talk 01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear original research. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a high amount of coverage in academic sources (papers and books), a dedicated academic conference (International Conference on Extended Reality), IEEE participation, coverage in publications in journals from various fields (Computer Science, medical practice, geo-information). MarioGom (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of what? Augmented reality and virtual reality? The concept of "extended reality" is simply a buzzword. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about your opinion (or anyone else's), it's about what reliable sources say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page. After all, Extended reality is a GROUP of things, and that's what a disambiguation page is for, I think. I have made a draft for it. SeaDragon1 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2025 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed A. Alrodhan

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

Page which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Saudi Arabia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not enough for this very highly cited field (quite apart from the general issue raised here[1]). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Some academic works are there but not enough to meet criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF, probably wikipedia should not have a article on it, fails WP:NBASIC. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Every professor should not have their own page, it needs to be shown that they are notable enough to be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG imo Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2025 (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. – robertsky (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reality–virtuality continuum

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

This concept was published in one single paper, and does not have wide acceptance among media, researchers, or any present papers. If anything, it should be listed at each of the authors' pages on Wikipedia if they have pages, however this concept is biased and incomplete, and should not have its own Wikipedia page. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The given rationale for deletion does not make sense to me. A quick google scholar search for the term turns up numerous papers. The original paper has 5000+ citations according to google scholar and searching for "reality virtuality continuum" for articles since 2024 results in over 1000 hits. Seems to be a widely discussed concept/seminal paper among researchers and is a topic of recent interest. If other reasons for deletion cannot be given, then this article should be kept and improved. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single paper? According to Google Scholar, Milgram 1995 has 5,569 citations, Skarbez 2021 has 502 citations. Just to name the top papers. There's probably hundreds of papers discussing the concept. MarioGom (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just meant keeping one key paper as a reference, but you’re right—there’s a whole body of research on this. Thanks for highlighting the scope agree with above vote!Sigma World (talk)
Keep Although just at a glance, I could not tell this concept had 5,000 citations. Might be prudent to put more of those on there so that we do not end up having to vote on this again sometime in the future. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there are more keep votes here, I support the nomination but there are sources available on google search which might be reliable enough to build notability of this articles, someone that has dropped a "Keep" vote should have At least made a significant improvement to this article by adding reliable source and expanding the article for it to be more suitable. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said there's plenty of papers and sources regarding it and I'm getting nearly 10,000 hits. Just needs some work done. Nahida 🌷 14:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources and citations for this to be a keep. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~tentatively -~~ contingent upon one addition reliable source added to the article. I'm not a fan of closing out an AfD without completing the process of showing actual significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC) I did it myself. WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2025 (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. MarioGom, you're free to make the move. asilvering (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wubuntu

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

Lacks independent in-depth coverage to pass WP:NCORP. UPE history as well (see User:Tristancr). Gheus (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very easily found https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-i-no-longer-recommend-this-windows-like-linux-distro/ and https://www.pcworld.com/article/2532994/3-free-linux-distros-that-look-and-feel-like-windows.html and https://betanews.com/2024/01/23/this-free-windows-11-clone-with-copilot-ai-has-been-updated-download-it-now/ -- is there a reason these were not mentioned in the nomination? jp×g 🗯️ 03:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~ZDNET's reliability has been shaky since 2020 (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#RfC: Red Ventures)~~, but there's other sources. BetaNews was a "good site" in 2001 per [2], though it is possible that its quality has changed in the past twenty-and-some years. PC World is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and the coverage is significant. I also found significant coverage in an article from The Register. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 17:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note on ZDNET: The website is currently listed as generally unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but it is no longer owned by Red Ventures as of last year. The article in question demonstrates an effort to get things right ("We've pulled the original content..."), which is encouraging. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 17:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's been in-depth coverage, especially from The Register. I have stubified and rewritten the article to be based exclusively in reliable sources and remove any concern about promotional content. Also note that they have renamed to Winux (it seems they rename each time there's bad press). After closing the AFD, the article should be moved to Winux. --MarioGom (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable or widley covered. At least not enough for stand alone article. Does feel like product promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2025 (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 23:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeepSource

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

This company does not meet the notability guideline for corporations. The only coverage of this corporation is from trade publications. The existing sources are either unreliable (Forbes) or routine coverage (TechCrunch). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Computing, India, and California. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources listed do not appear to assert notability, with one (Fortune India) using some questionable language ("revolutionary", "uber-cool"). The other two that appear to have some depth (Devops and TheNewStack) seem to be centered on their product "globstar" and not the company itself. As usual, I ignored the sources we already have flagged as potentially unreliable (which were already mentioned by the nom) I haven't found any better sources in my search.ASUKITE 21:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Forbes India article is a company profile. The Fortune India piece appears under the Fortune India Exchange, which is likely a sponsored feature. Other available articles mostly follow a promotional, SEO-driven format. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to above mentions, finding a handful of the citations are just passing mentions. or even primary sources.Villkomoses (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; corposlop. jp×g 🗯️ 03:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not really support notability and a lot of them are self published sources. We cannot have every single company on Earth have their own page if they are not notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomination.Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace College of Business and Computer Science

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

Fails WP:NORG tagged for notability for 5 years, created by a sock. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Computing, and Ethiopia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete no coverage in WP:RS, does not pass WP:NSCHOOL. It is not even clear if it still exists, the website is not reachable. --hroest 19:46, 5 May 2025 (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.

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to FreeBSD#Foundation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FreeBSD Foundation

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

Not notable organisation Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Colorado. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to FreeBSD#Foundation where important info is already included.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is certainly a notable organization that has coverage in sources. I think this article needs improvement, not deletion. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Can you provide examples of significant coverage? I have found no WP:SIGCOV about the foundation that meets the requirements of WP:NORG. Anything in depth I've found about the foundation relies of heavily on interviews which does not meet requirements for establishing notability under WP:NORG. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FreeBSD#Foundation. All coverage seems to be passing mentions in articles about FreeBSD. MarioGom (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (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. – robertsky (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIIOP

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obscure behind the scenes software program to connect javascript to another obscure software program, in this case Lotus Domino. Fails notability, as per nom. Also, this article is two sentences, and this software fails WP:SIGCOV. -- AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not see any WP:BEFORE in the nominating statement. The other voter references JavaScript, which does not seem to be mentioned in the article at all (as far as I can tell it's exclusively talking about Java, a completely different and unrelated language), so I am not sure what they are referring to. jp×g 🗯️ 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many refs found using the Google books link above. See WP:BEFORE. Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DIIOP seems to have been ubiquitous in its day. I've added several book refs. None go in-depth but collectively there's enough to build an article. Google Scholar (use the link above) indicates a number of journal articles mentioning DIIOP but I did not have access to them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:21, 9 May 2025 (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.