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

James Turnbull

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Computing, and Software. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - very poorly written. TNT? I'm not !voting because he's a friend of a friend. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Noble (computer scientist)

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

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The award might be notable, but there is nothing to be found in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor. Gnews also has nothing. The article is unsourced, so could be a hoax? There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.

Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The GS profile shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the Dahl-Nygaard Prize contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your GS profile link goes elsewhere; I think you want this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV

why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).

In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:PROF per David Eppstein's analysis, so I would normally be in favor of Keep, but as of writing this comment, the article has zero sources. Perhaps it might be a good idea to Draftify so an editor can complete the article. Madeleine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it can be sourced to his 2022 curriculum vitae. It's obviously not independent, so usable only for uncontrove×rsial education and career details, not evaluation and opinion, but I think that's all we really need. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he passes PROF, we need more sources than just one, which would violate our rules against WP:OR and WP:BLP. We also recently deleted the article of a notable dancer who was featured in a documentary about Madonna, because it was substantially an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that NPROF applies here and even that he potentially passes NPROF? If we agree on that, NPROF states that the guideline is independent from WP:BIO and is explicitly an alternative path to notability and that any reliable source that demonstrates NPROF#1 or NPROF#2 is sufficient. Your request for additional sources again is covered by NPROF which clearly states that no independent sources to confirm trivial undisputed facts are required under NPROF. Are you disputing that a reliable source exists to demonstrate that he passes NPROF or are you unhappy with NPROF as a guideline itself? Because reading your argument it seems you are trying to challenge NPROF itself and its assertion that it provides an alternative path to notability independent of GNG. However this AfD is not the correct place to have this discussion, if you disagree with NPROF itself, we should have this discussion over there. --hroest 15:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F6 disk

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CouponBirds

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

References do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "businessing" looks like a vanity 'interview' site which advertised paid placement and guest/sponsored posting. 'dailymail' is a depreciated source and the other remaining media sources are simply noting survey results and other content marketing from the company. A large amount of SEO/PR and other paid placement was removed from the article before it was moved to articlespace by the declared paid creator. I was not able to find any reliable sources specific to the company in a search. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used are not substantial (App Store, Microsoft Edge Addons, Chrome Web Store, LSU Financial Aid, "Favorite Chrome extensions"), are not more than trivial mentions (The Guardian, CBS News), are not independent of the company (Businessing Magazine), or are published by unreliable or questionable sources (International Scholarships Search, Mail Online, Newsweek). I did some searching but did not find much - this company's reports are cited often, but only by articles that list the "top 50 CostCo snacks", etc. Not in-depth coverage. -- Recon rabbit 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO, promotional article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another failed paid editing attempt by someone who does not understand WP:NCORP. References fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Professional Certification

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

I could not find any secondary sources that are not user-generated about this certification system. This certification is not even mentioned on Ubuntu or Canonical's page. Online searches yield no results from ProQuest or Google, and there does not seem like there is a quality redirect target. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. The forum source doesn't count towards notability. I can't access the other one due to the Wayback Machine being blocked on my work internet, but given that it's from Canonical themselves, it's irrelevant anyway for notability purposes. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the other source now that I'm home, and yeah it's just a press release. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have considered a redirect to Linux Professional Institute. However, I don't think "Ubuntu Professional Certification" was the official name ever. The author of the Wikipedia article probably took it from Canonical's announcement headline. The course was, as specified in the official announcement and other materials, Ubuntu Certified Professional. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kashem Mia

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

Passing mentions only, need evidence for WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory also, not every person deserves a article unless their contributions are detailed and in-depth sources, even 1, must be cited, not just name but also birth, birth place, education and position in work/jobs. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

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

I couldn't find secondary sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability. The best I could find was that [1] mentions them in passing and says they folded "some time after 2010", similarly [2] mentions them to say they've been "discontinued". [3] mentions they 'resurfaced with the “Open Source Hardware Certification” programme of the Open Source Hardware Association in 2018' but doesn't source that or give further info.

When I tried to PROD the article a year ago, User:Jueneu said on the talk page they were still active but I can't find any significant coverage since then, just some self-published content around "ohanda.one". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that would qualify this for WP:NORG. Appears to be defunct and was never particularly notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Open hardware. The organization does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT for a standalone article, but a mention at Open hardware seems to be warranted given it has been (briefly) discussed in reliable sources such as [4] (published by Oxford University Press) or [5] (published by Taylor & Francis). MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open hardware per MarioGom. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StartKey

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

This article regards an initiative that never progressed beyond initial press. The subject is not notable. — Greentryst ^T_C 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to the nominator, I have only been able to find announcements about the initial collaboration between Sandisk and Microsoft. All coverage is routine and does not make for a notable prototype or product. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Sasada

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

This article about a programmer and academic has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three external links, but these don't help with notability (two interviews and a blog post with a translation of work by Sasada). I may be missing sources in Japanese, but with what I have found I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Heroku is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Technology, Computing, Japan, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPROF and I dont see enough in-depth coverage to justify notability as a Ruby developer per WP:GNG. --hroest 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classifier (UML)

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

This is clearly more like a guide than an encyclopedia article. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unified Modeling Language. Hyper-specific UML concept that does not need a standalone page. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [6][7][8]. 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]

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: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], 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]

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]

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]

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 [14], and 2015 CNN article [15], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [16]. 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 [17]~~. 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. [18] [19]. 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: [20], [21] and the other is a comprehensive review: [22]. 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]

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]

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]