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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Object-Oriented Persistence

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

The only two sources currently linked in the article are self-promotional (from the creator of the POOP system or instructional websites explaining Perl). WP:BEFORE search yields coverage of Object-oriented programming, but I'm not seeing significant coverage of this specific acronym or concept within reliable sources - so, POOP fails WP:NSOFT. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Computing. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also not seeing significant coverage. Could redirect to Object database as an alternative. General concept of object persistence is clearly notable, but this specific implementation in perl is likely not notable enough for its own page. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl or delete. A concept proposed by 2 Perl module authors that did not seem to gain much traction beyond the obvious joke. MarioGom (talk) 19:29, 15 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 23:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Filatov (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable promotional page from PR-account. Obvious violation WP:PAID. Кронас (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding reliable, independent coverage that is not routine information about changes in business leadership or similar. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTFB. It's not even a well-written or impressive resume. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Not enough for a stand alone article. Reads like a resume. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:59, 18 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.

Walid Sultan Midani

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a game designer and businessperson, and added an interview. The current references are two interviews, a non-independent source which mentions him in passing (fi.co), a deadlink and a site which doesn't mention this person. I cannot find more to add, although I may be missing coverage in other languages. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, Computing, and Tunisia. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have suggested a redirect to DigitalMania but I AfDed that article too for similar reasons. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I believe the company page would be notable (see my !vote here) but not the founder. There is one good source on the founder but nothing else I can find that would show how he meets either WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DigitalMania Not notable for stand alone article. Seems more relevant on his company page. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:44, 18 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) 11:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XB Machine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to xB Browser. It has been discussed mostly in connection to the xB Browser project [1][2][3]. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much coverage about the machine itself. Redirect xB browser is an ok alternative too.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough. It didn't have enough coverage in the 2000s and doesn't have enough now. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an anonymous editor using an Orange España IP address removed refs before this AfD was initiated.^diff MarioGom subsequently restored them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure any of them are reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Clenpr (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants evaluate refs. It’s always inappropriate to delete any refs just before an AfD. Another editor thought the same thing and reverted those deletions. Editors are always sizing up their peers for trustworthiness and credibility. This type of thing doesn’t help. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your assessment for those references? Are them reliable sources? Clenpr (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided 3 sources above, which are way enough for a redirect. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 17 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 VHDL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VHDL-VITAL

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VHDL. MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Small part of VHDL, so redirect to there.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VHDL: Not enough notability to warrant it's own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I just added 5 refs which I found using the Google Scholar and Google Books links at the top of this AfD. 30 seconds for each search. There's more out there. This is so frustrating - see WP:BEFORE. Incorrectly saying this article fails WP:GNG and taking it to AFD ties up people's time. (I subsequently spent 20 minutes on the article and this AFD). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz,@Itzcuauhtli11,@MarioGom - FYI, I just added 5 refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the added sources demonstrate reliable, significant, secondary coverage. Two are white papers by Vreeland and appear to be self-published. The book "VHDL for logic synthesis" mentions vital 3 times and doesn't seem to go into depth. The IEEE article from 1995 reads as primary to me. I generally do like the source from 2017 for meeting criteria to determine GNG, but with only 3 citations it's very hard for me to determine if this topic is significant or just of niche interest to academics. I still think a redirect is the best option here

All of that aside, I agree the frequent AFDs from Clenpr that are only minutes apart are annoying and make it seem as though WP:BEFORE is being ignored and it is a drain on other editors. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clenpr is also ignoring WP:ATDs in these nominations. I suggested this redirect option in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of many VHDL-related standards, mentioned in VHDL. There's no point in a single sentence article per WP:NOPAGE, and VHDL article is a better place to expand on the topic. Without prejudice of anyone splitting VHDL-VITAL if it ever becomes necessary. MarioGom (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Its the standard nomenclature for a specific VHDL programming model and there many many of them. I don't think it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 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.

RTP payload formats

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of RTP payload formats.

I agree with User:Pppery that this article is sort of a list, but disagree that this is inappropriate. The table that constitues the bulk of the article gives context and explanation, refuting the argument on directories and catalogs. Instead, it describes a notable subject: the fact that there exist plethora of RTP payloads. It serves as a stepping stone for further investigation and research for those with further interest.

I also disagree with User:MarioGom that a redirect should suffice and with User:Wcquidditch that the existence is sufficiently described in the main article. The referenced section only briefly summarises the large number of different formats.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment here (until now) has purely been deletion sorting; I have (and had) no opinion on the article. It is Anonrfjwhuikdzz that says that material at the main article — which I will note is Real-time Transport Protocol — is sufficient. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be find with a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not convinced and exhaustive list is appropriate for wikipedia as we're not supposed to be a directory/catalog --- that's a job for the RFC series. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC Editor only lists all RFCs and makes them available. It is not a function of the RFC Editor to present overviews per subject of any kind. The overview presented in RTP payload formats, compiled by many editors, stands on its own and has become a de facto source on the subject. This is reflected in the number of visitors of the page. Deletion would be a disservice to the public, IMHO; a rename better reflects the nature of the article.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NLIST: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. Rename to List of RTP payload formats if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats per MarioGom. There is already a section in RTP main page. This looks like a list and notability is not really clear for a stand alone article. But it can be integrated to Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Standards_documents. I also do not think wikipedia is a repsitory of stuff, when external links can be used for a database that has such standards. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, Do you think that the WP:LISTN standard is met? If so, would you be happy if we renamed the article to make it clear that it is a list and closed this AfD.

As a stand-alone article, it sounds like you're making a WP:NOT argument. What section of that policy do you think applies here? I guess WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be the most likely mapping for repository of stuff but I personally don't see a clear match to this situation. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this meets WP:NLIST. Renaming may not help. I think an external link would be better than using Wikipedia as a depository. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MarioGom and Ramos1990 have suggested redirecting which I assume means they don't believe we should have a stand-alone article/list on this topic. Without providing a reason for this preference, I assume/hope whoever closes this discussion will not give these opinions much weight. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explained more on my reasoning. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced this article is not acting as a directory for RFC articles/RTP payloads. Yes there is some discussion of these formats as a group which would qualify this for NLIST, but the arguments in favor of deletion/redirection have centered around what WP:ISNOT.

Outside of the opening summary there is not much providing context for the protocols. I don't understand the reasoning from @Dandorid that the table provides context or explanation to these protocols. These are just very basic summaries of the protocol specifications from my reading, but where is the context about development and uses that makes these entries something more than WP:NOTPLOT? Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA, so why not just link to their website in the main RTP protocol article for people with further interest? The only parts of the table that provided additional context were certain descriptions detailing changes in payload type/the reasons for reserved blocks but those specific instances could easily be added to the prose at Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats.

All of that said, I do want to change my vote to redirct with the target being the most appropriate section of Real-time Transport Protocol. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge with some other article, but absolutely don't delete the content. This article just helped me out today. Félix An (talk) 05:49, 22 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 List of Microsoft 365 applications and services. ✗plicit 14:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft InterConnect

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was a book written about it in Japanese ^{(translation)}. Otherwise I'm finding nothing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Microsoft 365 applications and services. This is a discontinued product that was marketed only in Japan, so mostly unknown outside the country. It does not seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT, but it can be assumed to meet the inclusion criteria for the product list. MarioGom (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Microsoft 365 applications and services per MarioGom and my own search above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:51, 10 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.

JOSSO

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have added 2 refs. One is a journal article and the other is a book chapter however the book is published by IGI Global which has a poor reputation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of single sign-on implementations where it is already mentioned. I'm unable to assess the new sources from A. B. and have not been able to find any of my own. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 17 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CryptLoad

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search didn't turn up anything. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost an exact copy of an AfD I just voted on. Programs need more RSes to justify inclusion or we would have a page for every program. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:17, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCrypt

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching didn't turn up anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:N. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search turned up only passing mentions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There needs to be more sources provided to show that this is notable. Every random program should not get its own article under our current framework. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of disk encryption software where it is listed. WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reliable source for this? We will need to remove then entry in that article if unreferenced. Clenpr (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails GNG. Delete as per nomination.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:40, 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.

SIS (file format)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. I just added 4 references found using the Google Scholar and Google Books link on this page above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Symbian, without prejudice of re-creation with proper sources and references. In its current form, this is an article that should have gone through WP:BLAR easily. MarioGom (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable.

80.212.144.89 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more inputs on the newly added sources and the ATD proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Symbian#Design. Not enough notability for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:13, 17 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 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 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Command verb

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is wide usage of this term in human-computer interaction, but not so much coverage specifically about it. Also used in linguistics and religion, apparently, so there's no really good redirect target. MarioGom (talk) 11:31, 10 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.

Integrated Project Support Environment

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see the original ref plus 2 more added just now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Soldier Research Program

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

Promotional, entirely self published sources, poor quality article, should be moved to draftspace or deleted. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Science, Computing, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are definitely not self published (WP:ABOUTSELF). Any source that begins with ISBN, ISSN or DOI is not self published. I don't see anything promotional here. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, that's not correct. Anyone can get an ISBN for a self-published book. Also preprint platforms allow you to get a DOI on any submission. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Moreover, the sources are nearly all by Abdel-Malek and coauthors themselves. Even if they're not "self-published" in the sense kf being run off on the office Xerox machine, they're primary sources and thus unusable. 158.121.180.24 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not see any self-published sources, I do see some issues with promo/NPOV and general MOS issues. The paragraphs The Santos simulation platform was developed from the ground up. Using the 215 DOF and based on the use of optimization based methods that enable cost functions to drive the motion, the numerical algorithm drives the motion to predict joint variables across time (also called joint profiles) and subject to a number of constraints. For example, predicting gait of any body type is now possible. Similarly, any task can be modeled and simulated using this approach. Xiang, Yujiang, Jasbir S. Arora, and Karim Abdel-Malek. "Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion." Multibody System Dynamics 28.3 (2012): 199-224. and Over time, the Santos family has grown to incorporate a variety of different body scans to provide a range of models that include our female version, Sophia, and a broad array of different body shapes, types, and sizes. Our research is currently being extended to allow multiple digital human models to interact with each other to complete tasks cooperatively. … Santos was built using state-of-the-art technologies adapted from robotics, Hollywood, and the game industry. VSR research continues to grow in its dynamic capabilities, physiology, and intelligent behaviors through integration of Artificial Intelligence, design optimization, physics-based modeling, and advanced, multi-scale physiological models. stick out to me as being inappropriate. However, the actual subject (VSRP and related inventions) do appear to pass GNG. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is a self-promo piece by a research group. Pages detailing a program or approach by a specific group belong on Facebook or LinkedIn, this is classic WP:What Wikipedia is not. It does not matter how many sources etc there are, this type of advertising is not what Wikipedia is for, we are an encyclopedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very obviously a research group advertising themselves. Not all schools deserve articles; few departments within schools need articles of their own, and almost no individual research groups merit them. This is no exception. It's just advertising. 158.121.180.24 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ldm1954. This is self-promotion by a research program/company that does not seem to have attracted significant attention. Their papers have received relatively modest citations, and I can't find any indication that this research has been independently discussed, evaluated or replicated in depth within the research literature. In addition, given that it resulted in the spin-off of a private company to commercialise the research, and given that a significant proportion of this article is about the company/product, wouldn't it be the case that this article should actually be assessed under the higher notability standard of WP:NCORP? Because in that case I think this is an even clearer notability fail. MCE89 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa_Shevinsky

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has not been established for this person. Page was previously nominated for deletion Barrettsprivateers (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Computing, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD discussion was closed in 2013, so that was a while back. There is news coverage on Shevinsky that post-dates the previous discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voting for delete due to lack of notability. Research indicates that the subject does not have a reputation amongst her peers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrettsprivateers (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is already a vote. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done a bit of tidying up and removed the poorly-cited, resume-like items to focus on news coverage of Shevinsky. The best three sources (all in the article) are a 2014 New York Times article [9], and 2015 CNN article [10], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [11]. In addition, she has been widely quoted in the news talking about sexism in the tech industry (see examples in the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a bit better written after that clean up, but she is still not notable by WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG with WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS's mentioned by DaffodilOcean ~~and also phys.org [12]~~. She may also pass WP:AUTHOR #3 for her book Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking phys.org reference as I don't think it counts as a reliable source. However, keeping my !vote the same given three strong sources previously identified and three reviews for Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still not notable by WP:GNG RocketDwiki (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hard to analyze a negative. Notability has not been established. Therefore my comment of delete is pretty much all that is required in a vote. RocketDwiki (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Shapiro book section may not be completely independent, author is in the same niche as subject (tech startup CEOs who are frequently quoted about misogyny in the tech space) - guessing that's a pretty small world. See his blog post about their interview and article they were quoted in together. But the NYT piece is clearly sigcov, CNN is decent if a bit less in-depth, and her book has at least 3 reviews in RS. Put altogether subject seems at least weakly notable. Zzz plant (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the NYT piece, the CNN piece, and the reviews for her book are sufficient to establish notability. Her book and her work are also mentioned in at least half a dozen academic books and journal articles, e.g. [13] [14]. At worst, this should be redirected to Lean Out: The Struggle for Gender Equality in Tech and Start-up Culture as an ATD. MCE89 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish to be notable under WP:GNG. Have also discussed with cyber experts and she is not known to them.Fordyhall (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talking with outside experts is original research, which is not acceptable at Wikipedia (see WP:OR). I also find it interesting that you found a discussion at Articles for Deletion on your second edit. Have you been editing Wikipedia with another username? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just noting here that only one of the four nominators has put forward a reason for deletion consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the one who said they thought the article didn't meet WP:GNG guidelines didn't address the three sources DaffodilOcean put forward for notability in their Keep !vote above. Zzz plant questions whether the book is independent because the author and subject are in the same smallish field but also !voted Keep. I'll expand here on the three book reviews for Lean Out. Two of them also have coverage of the subject: [15], [16] and the other is a comprehensive review: [17]. With all of these sources taken together this article should clear GNG. I'm willing to accept the subject is not a cybersecurity expert, but this is not relevant for this discussion. Nnev66 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[18]). 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 [19], 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.

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]