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

Beginthread

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

Not notable. Wikipedia is not a place for Microsoft documentation. Avessa (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Very hard for me to believe this function is notable or interesting enough to have any significant coverage anywhere. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very odd article. Could exist as part of a broader overview of multithreading libraries in Windows (process.h?) Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg A. Mukhanov

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

Appears to be entirely promotional. Amigao (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The article appears to be purely factual; stating facts that happen to be positive is not promotional, and being promotional is not itself a valid deletion rationale. More, the nomination statement does not address any notability criteria at all, and Mukhanov's IEEE Fellow status passes notability through WP:PROF#C3 and is explicitly cited by WP:PROF as an example of the sort of society fellowship that passes that criterion. He also has strong citation counts on Google Scholar [1], enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

UTC)

Speedy Keep Absolutely an invalid nomination. Clearly meets WP:NPROF and the rationale presented has no basis in fact. Qflib (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as invalid nomination. Zero promotional content in the article. A bit CV-like, but that's nothing that can't be fixed through editing. See WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy keep WP:PROF#C3 for IEEE Fellow -- nominator is asked to familiarize themselves with relevant notability guidelines before making further nominations. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:PROF#C3. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trout Nom and Speedy Keep. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:45, 15 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.

Apryse

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Eleven of the references are the company's own press releases, in addition to which there are several dead links. Some of the remainder are mere mentions. There is some recent noise about the company being up for sale, but we consider that routine coverage or speculation. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Colorado. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree the current article relies far too heavily on primary sources, however the text is reasonably good from a WP:NPOV standpoint. I wonder if the article can be saved. I see some coverage for example on Google news, are any of these usable? I found the following that seem to be reliable according to WP:Perennial sources from Yahoo News and Reuters:

"Thoma Bravo considers sale of Apryse for more than $3bn". Yahoo Finance. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-07-14.

Vinn, Milana; Vinn, Milana (2025-05-29). "Exclusive: Thoma Bravo explores $3 billion-plus sale of software firm Apryse, sources say". Reuters. Retrieved 2025-07-14.

Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Caleb. As I mentioned in my nomination, the Reuters piece is speculative and based on unnamed sources, it is non-encyclopedic. Announcements of companies being bought and sold is considered routine coverage rather than a basis for demonstrating WP:NCORP notability. The Yahoo article is a rewording of the Reuters article, which is credited in the piece. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for replying and that reasoning makes sense. I do see a lot of these investing / selling announcement articles when perusing various corporation AfCs and other new pages lol. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Enyinnaya

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

No indication of notability. Sources cited in article do not even mention the subject in question, and there's clearly a lack of coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Nigeria. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly unnotable, basically just an advertisement. Weirdguyz (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not in the current references and I can't easily find any sources that I think even refer to this person. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as it clearly fails to show WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. Also It looks like a promotional in nature. Fade258 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, and also, when I see articles whose content doesn't match the sources, I suspect AI. Bearian (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, I agree with nominator. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of the above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:52, 14 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 23:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Meyers

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. See Google scholar. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sparse publications and citations in a very heavily cited area mean he does not pass WP:PROF#C1. The article focuses on his business for which we need WP:GNG-compliant sources and we have none. News and web searches found nothing usable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bordering on speedy. No sign that I see of WP:NPROF notability, no serious assertion (at least with sources) made of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far below number of citations or awards needed for this field for WP:PROF and as David said above no GNG pass either. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not opposed to draftify as ATD for the subject but lacks SIGCOV from doing a brief websearch so far. Would have been good if there was a NLP+++ the programming language article but so far have yet to be made.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clear consensus to delete; no !votes for keep or merge. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 22:51, 13 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.

Delta Air Lines v. Crowdstrike

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

We already have an article on the 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I don't think that this lawsuit is independently notable. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Aviation, Computing, and United States of America. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a sufficient amount of coverage on this topic to merit an independent article? The article looks reasonably well written but we could do with less fragmentation so I would lean merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption absent strong evidence that the present article will continue to grow beyond what the other article can accommodate. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear per nom which notability criteria it fails to meet – if there's sufficient GNG, it should be kept and in this case it seems that the lawsuit independently has been covered in reliable sources in-depth. WeWake (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would also like to suggest keeping the article. I'm the creator of it. I appreciate everyone's input here. I think there's enough coverage to support the topic being a standalone. However, I can also understand the position of merging it with the Delta Air Lines disruption page. I'll continue to improve the topic on whichever page it ends up living. Thanks again for everyone's time on this. Hannahthom7 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I agree with @Caleb Stanford this article seems OK but it's got a lot of overlap and also deals with three different lawsuits - Delta v CS, CS v Delta, and passengers vs CS. The case is still in early proceedings, perhaps if this ends up making some legal precedent it will be worth having a separate page. Oblivy (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption per WP:NOPAGE. The lawsuits form part of a notable event but do not need an article of their own; there is already a lot of overlap with the disruption page. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more discussion regarding WP:NOPAGE; the overlap seems to be the main argument from those advocating for a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting per the above relist. The article that is subject to AfD talks about the background for the lawsuit, the tenants of the suit itself, two counter lawsuits, and a contract between the two companies. The background is already included at 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption, creating an overlap, and the contract between the two is hardly relevant unless it's related to the suit itself. The second article has a section on the lawsuit that is lacking, so I believe the information on the different lawsuits can and should be included there. My consensus is to merge and redirect to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of QWERTY keyboard language variants#Italian. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian keyboard layout

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

Contested redirect several times without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show independent notability. And currently not enough sourcing to pass WP:VERIFY. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this less notable than Romanian keyboard layout, Icelandic keyboard layout, Icelandic keyboard layout, etc.? In your view, should all of these be merged into List of QWERTY keyboard language variants? Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at the other ones in depth, but please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If they are as poorly sourced as this one, then yes, as an ATD, redirecting to the variant page would be preferable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I was asking for your opinion. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of QWERTY keyboard language variants. Merge is unneeded as this entire page is already present in that list. In my searching reliable sourcing was thin, mostly blogs and reddit talking about it. Perhaps there is more in Italian, as always I will reconsider if presented with non-English sources. Moritoriko (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the Icelandic keyboard layout article is also already at the list article so it could probably be redirected as well. Its only source is a primary source defining it. Moritoriko (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and~~ Redirect to qwerty variants, it barely even looks that different. EDIT: Looks like it’s a fork of whats on that list, so it doesnt even need a merge. Metallurgist (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original author here. In my opinion List of QWERTY keyboard language variants is too large and may be difficult to navigate, this is why I created this page to add the new info. Neq00 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: it’s not only about the Italian layout. I think that most of the info in that page should be moved to language-specific pages, leaving only basic info about the layouts and See also links. Neq00 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of QWERTY keyboard language variants I think redirecting makes the most sense here and this page seems to be the ideal place for the information from this article to live. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:16, 9 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.

Random map

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

"Random map" appears to be an uncommonly used term. This page seems to fail WP:GNG and at most should likely be merged with procedural generation or just deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed the article shouldn't exist on its own. Undecided on deleting, merging as the nom mentions, or merging to the glossary of video game terms. I support any except retaining the stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense to me. Procedural generation already primarily focuses on video games, and has room for expansion. +1 to mention at glossary of video game terms also. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (may be redirect to entry in glossary; nothing is actually properly inline-cited to merge). It is a broad yet specialised concept and the current article has not established the actual subject as consistently seen in reliable sources. It's like having an article for "magic damage" or "jump attack". It's too broad for Wikipedia for sources to meaningfully tie the term across the multitude or variations without it all becoming SYNTH. Like, isn't this just a hand-picked subset of procedural generation with no clear delineation? — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either procedural generation or to glossary of video game terms, which should then mention procedural generation. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Procedural generation into a slimmed down version of the text (specifically the part where "random map" is defined in the first paragraph at a minimum), and use the sources present as citations. These concepts mostly overlap and there would definitely be a place on the encyclopedia to discuss this. Plus, I can imagine someone searching for "random map" as a more common term that people are familiar with, to find the more (extended) name for what the mechanism of random map creation is; i.e. procedural generation, to create a "random" map. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. These concepts definitely overlap and it's good to give readers that context. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]