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. ✗plicit 14:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaneo Johnson

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

No coverage beyond his fundraising; not notable. - The9Man ^Talk 09:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 09:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Fails Wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:SERIESA. I don't see what he's done, other than raise money. It's far too soon to know whether this young person will succeed or not. It's also not our mission to help raise money for for-profit companies. We are still trying to avoid the loss of our charitable status due to the machinations of the rich and powerful, and we need to be above reproach like Caesar's wife. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had this watched for a while now, but haven't been able to find any BASIC coverage. Agree it appears to be TOOSOON. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of merging content into Series should reliable, secondary, independent sources exist on the topic. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:07, 29 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. (non-admin closure) B3251_(talk) 13:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Misra

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

Fails BLP. Promotional article without reliable sources. B3251_(talk) 16:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fellow of the IEEE and the Association for Computing Machinery are both enough to pass WP:NPROF#C3. His citation record also looks like a pass of WP:NPROF#C1. MCE89 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, West Bengal, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3 for the same reasons as MCE89. Note that WP:PROF notability is not based on depth of independent sourcing. SK3 because the nomination does not even address the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any significant coverage in a reliable source about the subject. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see coverage of the language. Granted, not all cited sources can be used for notability, but I see articles and books about the language. I see a short discussion of the sources here, but nothing after some were provided. @Betseg can you elaborate on what is wrong with the sources in the article? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TurboSuperA+, around the same time you posted your opinion on this AfD, the user @Wukuendo left a somewhat inflammatory message on my talk page. Do you know each other by any chance? Betseg (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is the first time I hear of that user's existence. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Betseg, TurboSuperA+ and I are not the same person, as it looks to be going in that direction. In addition (AFAIK), our Wikipedia histories show we have never edited pages of the same programming language or OS nor hang out in the same circles. Wukuendo (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you two were the same people. A friend of mine notified me that my deletion nomination was posted on the Vlang Discord server, so I thought, with the two messages being so close together, you both might be in that Discord server and might've coordinated your messages. Betseg (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You now have pulled this into casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS), are engaging editors with rumors (from your unidentified friends on unidentified platforms), taking this outside the context of Wikipedia (discord servers), and give the appearance of being involved in WP:DOX (personal profiles on external sites). Who is/are the "friend or friends" of yours, that are involved in this, based on your statements?

For the public record, I have never been on the Vlang Discord server. That I even have to make such a statement in defense, is incredible. I have no idea who TurboSuperA+ is in real life. You were also told by both TurboSuperA+ and I, that we didn't know about each other. Yet afterwards, you have persisted in presenting unfounded allegations.

Wikipedia is also not a personal club, and is open to and for the general public, thus you can not control who, what, and where discussions referring to it can take place. Wukuendo (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not on the Vlang discord server, this is the first time I hear of it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my nomination, there is no coverage about the language in any reliable source that I could find. Feel free to link to any articles from reliable sources or books from reliable authors or publishers. Betseg (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The impression is made, of this being very goal orientated towards pushing article removal, while: (1) Bypassing "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". (2) Ignoring that the article went through Wikipedia's AfC process for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation) and was accepted by the reviewer Sohom Datta (top of article's talk page). For those who don't know, many programming articles didn't go through that process. (3) Ignoring the article's content assessment rating of C-class (above the usual Start-class). (4) Ignoring the relevance and long debates, involving experienced editors, on the article's talk page over sources (many removals and adds). (5) Apparently dismissing the TurboSuperA+ response (above).

I'm left to also wonder, how or why the V article, is the focus and top of one's personal list. For instance, when looking up programming language articles, have randomly come across Nial, Snowball, Toi... V doesn't stand out as the one to start with or focus on. Wukuendo (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This and this are both sources in the article that establish notability. Neither article is particularly long, but the entirety of both articles is dedicated to the programming language and both authors appear to have engineering backgrounds, making them reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is not an endorsement of Wukuendo's Talk page message or the rant above about this article being specifically targeted. This is only a source quality evaluation. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My usual approach for articles that use non-RS is to remove those sources and see what remains. I find it helpful to have less to wade through, and those sources should be removed in any case. However, the lengthy discussions at Talk:V_(programming_language) indicate that any edits to the article likely will a) be reverted and b) result in a strong reaction. Others have tried to bring this article in line with WP policy and it has eaten up a lot of time and even some administrator minutes. My concern is that since AfD is not cleanup, we have a kind of "my way or the highway" situation, which is a shame. (p.s. 4th AFD!) I'll circle around to see if any progress is made on this proposal that would give me more confidence. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not the 4th AfD. The 1st AfD, in 2008, is for a completely different language. The V programming language we are discussing, came out in 2019. I remember requesting this to be fixed, but that didn't happen and a new request for correction has to be filed. Wukuendo (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the third AfD. It was deleted twice in 2020. Presumably today there would be further sources. Many of the listed sources are not WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. This makes it difficult to know how much of the article would remain if those were removed and the unsourced material deleted (as is required by policy). Examples of unacceptable sources are: github, youtube (both of those can be listed in External links, but they can't be used in support of the article), self-published sources (Lyons and the Japanese book), personal blogs or sites (with some exceptions), unpublished slide decks. I would need to check each reference to see if the source could be considered reliable. It's common to ask an editor to point out 2-3 really solid references to save us time at AfD, and it would be great if you could do that. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources used are mainstream, including linked to notable articles on Wikipedia. Packt Publishing, Nova Science Publisher, Linux Format, TIOBE, MakeUseOf (MUO), Analytics India Magazine (AIM), etc... are solid. Being used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles: MUO [1], AIM [2], Hackaday [3], Linux Format [4], Packt Publishing [5]... Even more, TIOBE index is the most famous and industry recognized program language rankings in the world, and has V in their top 50. Other sources, can have specific or are for typical use reasons, with more elaboration given below. In addition to have been looked over by senior Wikipedia editors, references are doubled and tripled to confirm statements. At a rate much higher than typical.

If a person is not too familiar with programming languages, the typical programming language article on Wikipedia, or take care in the reading of the article's talk history then its easy to take things out of context. It might be good to check other examples: Zig, Gleam, Crystal, Gosu... There is also a general split on language origins, which might also cause confusion. Where you have corporate developed (with large budgets and media campaigns), languages out of academia, and then more individual and grassroots up.

In the case of GitHub, its usage was done under, "primary source may be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person". Relating to WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:Primary, and discussions under reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352#Github. In those cases, GitHub was used to:

(1) Link to the profile of the creator of V (Alexander Medvednikov) and this is typical of programming language articles created about individuals (not corporations).

(2) The origin of V's mascot and verification of its license. This was requested by senior editor Caleb Stanford, and to resolve those chain of issues.

(3) "V is released and developed through", for the location of the original and present software releases. This is typical of programming language articles.

(4) Additionally there is a 3rd party link on statistical information gathered from GitHub and about V, showing the notability of the repo and who the contributing developers are, but is not GitHub.

In the case of the YouTube link (WP:RSE); "may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher." The video is a presentation given on behalf of SYNCS 2023 (Sydney Computing Society) for the University of Sydney to confirm "language was created as a result of frustration with existing languages being used for personal projects". There was no previous objection made, likely because of its connection to SYNCS 2023, however moving to external links is not an issue.

In the case of Independent Laboratory, that is a Japanese company, with numerous programming and technical books published under them. It can also be argued under subject-matter expert. Wukuendo (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An external link to https://github.com/vlang/v/releases would always lead the reader to the latest release because that info is fungible. Also, I note that the link to the developer is to his github page - a better source is needed. The Simon Knott is a person blog post - not a RS. I perused the Independent Laboratory but am still concerned that it looks pretty informal - however, I do not read Japanese so I might have gotten the wrong idea. (That document has no identifier - ISBN, DOI, etc., which usually means informal.) The youtube is a person giving a talk, not, for example, a video created by an organization under "a reliable publisher." It can be placed in External links, but it essentially has all of the authority of a personal blog post. So, not a RS. I cannot find the Nova Trek book - I don't find it on Amazon, Worldcat, nor Google books. There may be errors in the citation, but I tried ISBN, author and title and got zero.

I realize I'm doing cleanup and need to stop. I'll focus on the sources to see if it meets GNG. However, I do think that statements cited to non-RS need to be removed. Lamona (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that others, along with myself, have no problem with constructive or agreed upon policy based changes. People will generally try to find compromises and help build. On stable and rated articles, personal lists of preferences or desired changes, are usually done on the article's talk page (as was previously done with senior editors) and where other editors also get their chance to give opinions. It is not done as demands from one editor that must be executed by another editor, as if they're subordinate. If a person's expertise is not in computer science or the programming field, that's fine, but there should be awareness on possible misinterpretations or missing particulars. This can be exacerbated, if one ignores an article's talk page or doesn't review the history, while trying to quickly implement personal preferences without consensus or compromise. When debates are on the article's talk page, it's easier to see the history and reference statements.

Simon Knott, for example, arguably falls under the category of subject-matter expert [6], a well known Microsoft developer and software engineer, and this becomes more clear by looking at his portfolio [7]. Thus deserves debate. This is why the senior Wikipedia editors (one of them being an active professor in computer science) who had reviewed it, left that alone.

The Nova Trek book is easily found on Amazon by using the obvious "V programming language" (at least 3 related books come up). Though it should be mentioned, that strangely and just when this situation started, the previously displayed ASIN links for the English language books were stripped off. Until then, it was easy to link to from the article. I put in a bug report about the ASIN link stripping situation. The ASIN is B0DRJMP1HM and the Amazon link is [8].

While it may not be a problem to use a link other than GitHub or reference for V's creator, this is not what is done on several similar articles of non-corporate created programming languages or non-affiliated creators, and it appears it can have a privacy component. A public GitHub profile (that verifies a creator's name), where hundreds of developers are contributing under, does not create that kind of situation. That's at least worthy of discussion. Wukuendo (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you assume that I am not "senior" nor familiar with programming. It would be best to stick to the content of the article. The Trek book appears to be self-published, at least based on Amazon's entry: "Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published". Lamona (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't type about you being a senior or not. In fact, my assumption was that you were a senior editor, before checking. If you are a programmer, then that's great. The Trek book itself says published by Wang Press, and so do a number of their other programming books. They also sell programming books in various other locations. Wukuendo (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on Rao (book), and the Hackaday article. The Analytics India article indicated by User:HyperAccelerated has a note that it is based on the V documentation, and it doesn't seem to introduce anything independent. The Packt source is good but is from 2019 and presumably the language has changed considerably. A number of sources turn out to be self-published or not reliable (e.g. conference presentations). While these might provide good information for the article, they don't serve the definition of notability, which is what we address here. Lamona (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V's documentation [9] is very extensive (over a hundred pages if printed out) and way beyond what could fit in a normal article. It would be natural for a tech writer to use it as a reference (or to draw insights from). Then to summarize, give a perspective, and do a good faith introduction to their readers. They would also likely be under various space and time constraints by the magazine.

Per previous conversation on a different video and mention of the conference presentation, "a video created by an organization", there is a video of the presentation on V (An introduction to V) [10] created by the Debian Conference (DebConf Videos) and is on their channel [11]. It could be introduced as a reference (within specific context). Wukuendo (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I did an almost complete source analysis which I could write up if anyone cares to see. Lamona (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is the main subject of several independent, published books; as well as specific references and rationale noted per above. WeWake (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Lyons and Trex books are both self-published. I don't have enough information on the Independent Laboratory one - it isn't listed in any lists of publishers in Japan, there is no ISBN, and I can't find a web site. Having that info would be very helpful if anyone has it. Lamona (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other books found and from Independent Laboratory [12] [13]. The Rao and Chakraborty books are not self-published. Also, "self-published doesn't mean bad" (WP:USINGSPS, [14]). Wukuendo (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that there is a difference between the sources that can support the facts of an article, and the sources needed for notability. For notability we must have a reliable source. In this case I cannot even confirm who Independent Laboratory or Nova Trex/Wang are - no web presence, not found in publisher lists, do not have an ISBN range, etc. Recent books by Trex have this statement: This book has been authored with the help of LLM tools ...; "help" could be doing heavy lifting there. My take is that they do not meet the WP definition of "reliable." And as for not "bad", please read the criteria list there for reliable sources. These sources do not meet these criteria: 1) "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" 2) "some form of review process, such as editing or peer review". If it can be shown that these sources do meet the requirements for reliable sources, then we can reconsider whether they support notability. I spent considerable time trying to even confirm the identities of these authors and publishers and could not do that. The fact that the books exist is not sufficient. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the Trex book, was introduced as a source by a different editor. On LLM tools, various modern authors and publishers increasingly use such new technology to help them create content, however, it's often impossible (at this time) to make entire books (of hundreds of pages) that are intelligible without human editing.

The other sources can support notability or statements in the article, and contested or debatable sources (as has been done) can be removed (as in the article history) or moved (i.e. further reading only) per suggestion or discussion. As can or has been done on various other programming language articles, during the normal editing process. For wanting to do what's appropriate, we are together. Wukuendo (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Various sources provided establish notability (as during its AfC process) and are demonstrably reliable sources (also used in hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia). Such as: [15], [16], [17], [18] , [19]... Wukuendo (talk) 08:38, 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 merge‎ to Vulnerability (computer security). ✗plicit 14:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Security bug

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

Should be merged into Vulnerability (computer security). Seems to largely be a neologism fork without much content. guninvalid (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previously involved editor: @HourWatch guninvalid (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vulnerability (computer security). Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. guninvalid (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this looks to be a clear case for merge. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vulnerability (computer security). That is a good suggested target. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vulnerability (computer security) is a good choice. Phạm Ngọc Phương Linh (T • C • CA • L • B) 07:46, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media phone

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

Article with almost no content, unreferenced and tagged for over a year. No evidence of notability. "Media phone" sounds like a generic term and would need references for clarification. —danhash (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —danhash (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination is quite overdue; on top of the unsourced tag (and the potential-NPRODUCT-failure tag that has been there a bit longer, since 2023), this is one of the few articles that has managed to have been tagged for PROD three times (in 2009, 2019, and 2024), all contested (two of them procedurally, as PROD can only be initiated once — and that means this nomination cannot end in soft deletion either). I have no opinion or further comment, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smartphone#History. The functionality described in earlier versions of this article has been supplanted by smartphones. If you want to add "media phone" to the target, this source might help. 3G networks made it possible to transmit data at a rate high enough to send and receive video, making multimedia access a possibility. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete per A1~~: No sufficient context to identify what exactly is a "media phone". The link above just says 3G cellular speeds made it possible to send each other videos instead of explaining or even identifiying media phones. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed context in the history. Delete per GoldRomean. The subject is not mentioned in the proposed redirect topic. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more context can be found if you look in the history but the article is vague and outdated with no WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced WP:CRYSTAL substub from >15 years ago about a concept that never took off and/or what we now know as a tablet computer. I'd also support a Redirect to Tablet_computer#History or Smartphone#History if there's any evidence that the term ever had meaningful currency. -- Avocado (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much worth saving here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:52, 27 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 no consensus‎. I see support--but no consensus--for the view that the current content is unfit for mainspace, and that the article should be rewritten. The key question of whether the topic is notable has not been decisively answered here. We should remember that the ever-popular WP:TNT is an essay about rewriting an article on a notable topic. There is no support in policy for use of the Delete button as an editorial tool to fix poorly written prose. Editors are encouraged to remove unsourced or non-encyclopedic content, whittling the article down to a stub if necessary, or to discuss potential redirect or merge targets on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM aided design

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. If this is notable, it needs WP:TNT ~~because it cannot be divorced from its creation by AI.~~ Wholly inappropriately sourced with unreliable sources, fails WP:V, which is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Previoulsy sent to draft with the rationale While not conclusively AI-generated, the writing style, structure, and tone are consistent with LLM-assisted authorship. It likely had human curation or editing layered on top of content produced or scaffolded by a large language model. Further, the references are almost all deprecated sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneThank you so much for your message.

@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.

Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.

Thank you,

Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.

Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?

As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{Cite journal}}, or why it would mix wikitext formatting with Markdown formatting (which is not used by Wikipedia).

This article exhibits too many characteristics of LLM-generated content to remain in article space. I am unconvinced that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement" when the the very first revision (Special:Permalink/1294545580) already shows heavy signs of being LLM-generated, including the excessive use of lists and the idiosyncratic use of title case that are associated with AI chatbots. Draftify, and the draft should not be moved back into article space without going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.

Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT? — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your question.

I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?

Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page, Talk:LLM aided design, that would help establish that the article is not LLM-generated and also help editors improve the article by having your original writing available to reference.

The Wikipedia community appreciates the academic community in general, but many Wikipedians have a negative view of LLM-generated content. On Wikipedia, articles are expected to conform to the Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.

To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback.

Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?

Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.

Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, don't worry about your disclosures resulting in a "lengthy and potentially cluttered post", as the content you post on Talk:LLM aided design will certainly be within Wikipedia's page size limit. You can organize your content by wrapping any section(s) of it between the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to prevent any clutter. It shouldn't take long to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, as you have already indicated that you have access to your ChatGPT logs. I'm requesting the disclosure of the entire pre-ChatGPT article because the information provided so far, frankly, does not convince me that the article is not LLM-generated. There are multiple paragraphs within the article body that lack inline citations, which is a serious concern with respect to WP:CHATGPT § Risks and relevant policies. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Qcne. I think that must be interpreted as Manvi jha13's opinion that it should be kept. This does not address the lack of WP:V in the nomination. I will accept their assurance about AI generation in good faith and strike that part of the nomination. It has now been drafified twice, which is one more time than DRAFTOBJECT allows. I do not feel it may be returned to draft space without a full consensus under these circumstaces, crcumstances whcih we would not be in without unilateral moves to mainspace (allowed, but unwise in this case). It may, however, be spared that via WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LouScheffer,

Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.

While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.

In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (with no shade intended to User:Manvi jha13): I am interested in the assertion, "The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation." Vocabulary is part of text, and suggesting it entails generation, does it not? I am interested because part of my day job is to teach writing courses, and I often hear from students things like, "I didn't use AI. I only used <LLM-based app> to <do writing-related thing>." Again, with no shade to Manvi jha13, it seems to me that the definitions of terms such as AI, LLM, and generate are currently unsettled. This is something that might eventually be mentioned in this or a similar article (though, of course, only after it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cnilep

Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.

To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.

Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.

Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. I'm no AI expert so I can't say for sure but I suspect we've got a really good article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. The article requires major revision, bordering on a total rewrite, to be an encyclopedia article. There are footnotes, yes, but as far as I can tell they are serving in lieu, or redundantly in addition to wikilinks (MOS:INTERNAL). Every single footnote I've been able to review is in the form of <thing>[ref to paper that introduced the thing]. This would be easily corrected by replacing them with wikilinks, but it means that the article does not have any references as we use them on Wikipedia, as a foundation on which the article is Wikipedia:Based upon. The fact that the papers cited are the original papers that introduced the things referred to means that they are for the most part going to be WP:PRIMARY literature, and non-independent. All of the analytic or evaluative content of the article are original research, or at least as they would be as far as we would be able to tell (if there are sources they are based from, the author has not cited many of them). This should not be resubmitted without the issues identified being addressed. Alternatively, this can be submitted to a different project that does accept original theories and conclusions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on discussion and review of the references, WP:V is not delete-level concern – yes, I agree more sources should be added. LLM-aided design is also a notable topic has has relevance to many fields, including biology where I have some experience. Kashyp et al (2025), Peng et al (2024). The editor is quite open to feedback and specific feedback can be given for further improvement if necessary. Overall, it's an useful contribution for an encyclopedia. WeWake (talk) 23:35, 2 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 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 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 ([20][21][22]), 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.