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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Wilson

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability. The subject is a software engineer and founder of what looks like a non-notable company. The only source cited is a basic funding announcement, which doesn't establish anything on its own. There is nothing out there that gives in-depth, independent coverage. No sources that meet WP:GNG Junbeesh (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. I was considering nominating this and the two related articles for deletion myself when I saw them in NPP. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. He does not rise above the noise in search results for his name. I can't find out anything about him besides that he founded the one company. FalconK (talk) 00:37, 18 June 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Monolingual Corpus

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

I can't verify that this dataset ever existed, let alone that it meets WP:GNG. No obvious associated academic paper, and I can't find a reference to it at the given external link or another link I found on a random GitHub repository. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this dataset ever existed, it doesn't appear to have ever been cited in research, nor does it appear to be accessible either directly from the compilers or in online corpora databases. -- LWG ^talk 18:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 14 June 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. It could make sense to merge into a larger article down the road, but no consensus to delete or merge at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Extensibility Protocol

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

Refs added are only passing mentions, lack WP:SIGCOV. Still fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added another source for good measure. More to be found searching RFC 2741. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, these don't look notable to me. A quick Google Scholar search reveals that the topic is obscure and only mentioned in articles with a tiny number of citations. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By doing research RFC 2741 the article is notable--Unclethepoter (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC doesn't meet WP:RS and is likely primary. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a pure sourcing basis, IETF and CRC Press are definitely reliable. guninvalid (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IETF is primary. The CRC book is not well cited so I am not sure it should be used to support notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROMO and WP:AUDIENCE. Regarding notability, the sources that were provided are obscure (not well cited) scientific works; "multiple independent, significant, and independent of the subject" does not appear to be met. Merge to Simple Network Management Protocol is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a few references that I could find in books that talk about the protocol; more exist but this suffices keep for me. WeWake (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeWake: both sources that you added are poorly cited academic sources with very little references or acknowledgement from the wider research community. Do you have a connection with this topic? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Stanford, Citation count is not the only indicator of reliability—it depends on the context and more so in an academic setting. Tons of peer-reviewed publications in generally reliable places are rarely cited beyond a few times in many discplines, that doesn't make them "poor." Also, please review WP:ASPERSIONS since this is the second time you've asked me specifically about COI (which curiously was not asked to the other commentors here). Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only indicator but it's a pretty good hint! These are not good quality sources. Asking about a COI doesn't mean you have one - it's just a question and it's fair to ask. I did not accuse you of misconduct so WP:ASPERSIONS does not apply. Thanks for the reply. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't answer the question, would you like to respond? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SATISFY. WeWake (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeWake: The page you linked already covers this exactly: "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding." You're not obligated to respond, but refusing to simply respond that you don't have a COI is a bit strange, if indeed you don't have one. See WP:DGF. Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:53, 4 July 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 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy (software)

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

Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is most appropriate here (or userfy with complete rewrite and new sourcing): I agree with the OP. This article, especially the configuration and version control sections read as promotional and violates WP:RSPX due to having two Twitter references. I don't know anything about this software, however this article likely needs a swift return to userspace or failing that, deletion. 11WB (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't found significant coverage about the topic to justify it's notability. I barely see the coverage about the topic. Fade258 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly referenced, WP:GNG is not clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 14 June 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 merge‎ to Huawei Watch. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Watch 5

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

Huawei Watch already exists therefore this page is duplicative and unnecessary Dahawk04 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/update to Huawei Watch Nothing else to add; nom laid it out perfectly and it should just go right to the watch article. Nathannah • 📮 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is an admin willing to complete this request? It doesn’t seem there is any controversy or debate on this one. Thanks all! Dahawk04 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Huawei Watch is a better solution than deletion. A sentence or two may be added there to preserve some basic information. Insillaciv (talk) 14:28, 13 June 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 23:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conscium

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

TOO SOON, as I cannot find reliable sources. References are not focused on the Conscium company. Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable for an entry in the encyclopedia at this time. Though WP:RS are listed in the references, they are behind paywall so accessing them for an assessment was impossible. But before search did turn out any impressive result for notability. Patre23 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. First off, it was written by ChatGPT and/or an overpaid editor for hire. Secondly, this company is too new to be the subject of an encyclopedia article; everything written in any of the sources is merely news. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katana (photocopier)

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

Article was created in 2006 and later back-sourced to a press release about printers from 2009 (archive) which does not even mention the word "Katana". I can find no evidence these printers (or any Ricoh products) were ever referred to by that name. Closest thing is a paper on Ricoh's "Japanese sword digital archiving system", but that's from 2014. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nom, I was unable to find evidence of this printer's existence, let alone its notability. Perhaps the IP who wrote this was referring to the Aficio MP 1350? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:13, 16 June 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 redirect‎ to KDE Software Compilation 4#Visual. No delete or keep, but a good common ground for a redirect (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Project

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

Fails the notability guideline for web content. All of the current sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources like blog posts. A quick search for more sourcing didn't turn up anything. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Computing, and Internet. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t this use general AfD and not Web? It seems to be related to a software project, not a website. — Lightcrowd (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDE_Software_Compilation_4#Visual: Fails standalone notability guidelines, but it is the theme for KDE 4 so it would make sense to redirect there. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been keeping an eye on this AfD, but I'd be perfectly alright with a redirect or selective merge to a broader article if there's consensus for it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:56, 19 June 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 23:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Public Radio

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

Contested prod without improvement. See page's talkpage for rationale. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Move to Draftspace - This is a fairly well-written page, but the sourcing is not strong enough or well-utilized enough. If works wants to continue on it, I could argue for moving it over to being a draft, although the fact that PROD was disputed without improvement makes this likely a failing idea. PickleG13 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have draftified it, but it wasn't eligible for draftification, except through the AfD process. I would have no problem with sending it to draft, as long as the editor agrees to put it through the AfC review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of the content is sourced to their website and most of the other sources do not meet WP:RS, with some being blogs, PR sites like Feedspot, reviews with no named author, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteboard Pattern

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

This article has several issues. While they could be fixed in isolation, it might be easier to start from scratch:

May not meet notability guidelines (tag added in 2018)
Orphan
Not written as per Wikipedia style (e.g., has external links within the text, references within titles)
Has grammar issues
Hard to understand
May need more references
Some of the statements may not be accurate (e.g., "The Listener Pattern is typically known as Observer Pattern. It is a Behavioral Pattern (aka Publish-Subscribe)," --> it is not correct that behavorial pattern is "also known as pub-sub") 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 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 merge‎ to Poul-Henning Kamp. I see a consensus to merge this into another article, but differing views as to what that target should be. No prejudice against finding a better target, which can be discussed on the Talk page. According to the views expressed here, Poul-Henning Kamp seems to be the one best supported by the sourcing, and the target least likely to suffer from WP:UNDUE if merged to it. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Slight merge to open source is possible, but this page should not remain as-is due to a general lack of any notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in Google Books, and reviewing past discussions, it seems there is some coverage in reliable sources ([1][2][3]), but all of it seems to be passing mentions. I would favor a redirect/merge to Open-source license or any other appropriate target. MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are some notable mentions and I believe the topic meets WP:GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poul-Henning Kamp: Most of the sources talking about it are in reference to him creating it, doesn't seem to be much more than a fun trivia joke about hey this exists. Moritoriko (talk) 05:53, 1 July 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. Opting not to draftify deliberately. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Green (entrepreneur)

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

No sigcov in the article or after a Google search. It doesn't seem like this guy or his blockchain company meet GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG as subject has received substantial coverage specifically in Korean and Chinese language multiple reliable media sources, TV programs, etc. Those newspapers coverage goes well beyond routine business appointments. Also his role as CEO of io.net also adds to the notability. He also worked on top positions for big firms (Disney, Oaktree Capital, Merrill Lynch) and the not all sources were added.--Mozzcircuit (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited from being CEO of a company or being an executive at other companies. If there are reliable sources like newspapers, it would help to share them here. I couldn't find them by searching and they aren't in the article, so no one here can assess them. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG thanks to multiple independent reliable sources available and added. The Subject is CEO of a notable tech company with substantial media coverage.--Slarticlos (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share some of these sources or add them to the article to help improve it? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the GNG. I've gone through all the sources in the article and summarized my results in the table below. Toadspike [Talk] 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[4]	Obviously promotional tone			✘ No
[5]	Interview			✘ No
[6]		Written by an "independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program"		✘ No
[7]	Seems to be based entirely on a company press release.			✘ No
[8]		No byline	~ One paragraph on Green, probably not sigcov.	? Unknown
[9]			No information on Green beyond the fact that he was appointed.	✘ No
[10]	An opinion piece written by Green himself.		Doesn't contain any info about Green.	✘ No
[11]			Just some quotes from Green, no indep. sigcov.	✘ No
[12]			Less than a sentence is about Green.	✘ No
[13]	Clearly a recycled press release.	No byline.		✘ No
[14]			No sigcov of Green, simply says that he was appointed and includes a quote from him.	✘ No
[15]			Doesn't say much beyond that Green was appointed CEO.	✘ No
[16]		Seems to be a wire report based entirely on press releases; strongly promotional tone.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@Mozzcircuit, you say "not all sources were added". Do you have further sources beyond what I reviewed above? Toadspike [Talk] 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I ask for the page gratification in order to review the Asian Korean Japanese and other sources, as I did not see them before and I think I may improve the draft /page.--Ticielli (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on the source analysis presented would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source assessment by Toadspike. With no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, The subject fails WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as aptly and devastatingly demonstrated above by Toadspike, the sourcing is atrocious. We are not a free website for promotion of an investment. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I change a vote for draftification. It seems to me the page might be rewritten in a better shape and better sources added.--Mozzcircuit (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- the page should be draftified as there is a good chance for its future resubmitting.--91.120.129.195 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 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.