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

Word processor program

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

This is one of three articles at word processor, word processor (electronic device) and here at word processor program. The significance of the root term and the broad article is obvious. The need for an article on the physical devices is primarily historical, but also clear.

Which leaves us with this one, supposedly on word processor software. Which we find is currently an unsourced stub list of no obvious criteria (maybe historical more than importance). This article does nothing useful and anything its content does offer could be rolled up easily into the main article.

I've no objection to any split or redefinition to an article on the historical development of word processors, whether integrated or separate to the physical devices (Did WordStar overlap with the standalone typewriters? That might influence the best structure.) But this article, as it stands, as it has stood for a long time, and as it seems likely to stand in its current directionless stub, does nothing useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to word processor per nom. Very large overlap/duplication of content. Though instead of deletion, I feel like the section under word processor could adopt some sources and organization ideas from the article for deletion Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to word processor per nom. No case for deletion made or even suggested. If it were to be deleted rather than merged or otherwise redirected we would need to look at renaming List of word processor programs and Comparison of word processor programs but this nomination doesn't seem to be a request for deletion at all. I don't think it is deliberate forum shopping but rather strange. See also alternatives to deletion and wp:merging. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of word processor programs should certainly be within the scope of this discussion. I'm fine with a list of significant WP programs, but that has to be more than merely 'notable', per WP:MILL and all the regular software article discussions. That article at present doesn't stand, as it has neither useful inclusion criteria, nor adequate sourcing for what it has. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you don't actually link to WP:MILL. It is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, but even so I think you are misquoting it. You say I'm fine with a list of significant WP programs, but that has to be more than merely 'notable', per WP:MILL and all the regular software article discussions. No, the bar for inclusion of something in a list or other article is significantly lower than for a having a dedicated article on the topic, not higher as you seem to suggest. Were that not so, we would have no redirects to article sections. See Template:R to section/doc and note also Category:Redirects to sections which says in part The latter type redirects are good search terms and may have the possibility of becoming full articles someday (my emphasis). Note that may. It's not necessarily the case. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree substantially with that. WP doesn't need (well, I don't need, which is all I can truly say, but it's certainly my viewpoint) another content-free list of arbitrary names that pass the basic barrel-bottom level for possible inclusion in a list article, but that convey absolutely no encyclopedic content of any value by being there. Which is what we have here. Twice. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be simply an appeal to I don't like it (an essay I admit). And I sometimes find this too.

But if we don't like Wikipedia's policies etc, there are three options. One is to change them (and that's a policy). Another is to set up your own wiki, as I have done twice now, once seriously with The Online Encyclopedia of Tunings (much neglected recently I admit) and more recently and far less seriously with Unimpedia which could perhaps better be called Andrewpedia (and is equally neglected).

And the third is to invoke wp:IAR which is also a policy in its own right.

All three can can be constructive, but I doubt that there are grounds for IAR here. I could be wrong. But if I'm right then I think you need to look at the first two options, as your not personally finding the article content of interest is not a valid reason for deleting it under our current policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit awkward. I think the best outcome would actually be rename to word processing program. The merge idea is OK, but it's odd to have word processor and word processor (electronic device), and the article at word processor currently spends a lot of text on the devices part. I think word processor should be a DAMB page and link to both pages as options. (Edit: if it wasn't clear, I would instead favor merging content from word processor over to this one, instead of merging in this direction.) Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're broadly agreeing here that there should be one article on word processors (the software we run on general purpose computers to do it) and a separate article on the historically significant, but now largely obsolete, devices that were dedicated single task hardare for this, based around either screens or printers.

The question then would be how to structure it. You suggest a disambig at the primary topic name and two subsidiary articles, of broadly equal prominence. I'd do it the other way, as I think it's clearer: the main article at the primary topic, then a secondary article on the physical devices, with a disambiguated name. No-one likes disambig pages, they get in the way of navigation. Also as there's a very clear primary topic here by importance (even if they weren't the earlier uses of the term), then that gets the favoured name. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree that we are in broad agreement and with your summary text after "broadly agreeing here that"!

I'm somewhat agnostic on the structure, as long as the proper cleanup is done to move the content around to the appropriate pages. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's weird at all per WP:Summary style. The devices article has a lot of extra detail that justifies a separate article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shafik Quoraishee

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

There's no significant independent coverage or profiles in reliable media to satisfy WP:GNG. Shafik Quoraishee is mentioned in primary or self-published sources (personal website, LinkedIn, Medium) and event listings. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is also his work at Nieman lab: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/01/how-the-new-york-times-is-building-experimental-handwriting-recognition-for-its-crosswords-app/, which is a significant and notable publication. And also at the Brave Technologist where he was interviewed: https://brave.com/podcast/e71/.

The NYT Open Platform is maintained by the New York Times, where his work is mentioned. https://open.nytimes.com/developing-an-internal-tool-for-our-puzzle-editor-d5dc7a9a6464

He's also mentioned on The New York Times Games wikipedia. The New York Times Games Meester king (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep, based on the above additional sources and notes. Meester king (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Engineering, Computing, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There don't seem to be enough independent sources that cover his person for us to have an article. Notability according to WP:NPROF doesn't seem to apply either; I can find a Shafik Quoraishee who has published a few papers, but nothing nearly prominent enough to meet those criteria. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but willing to change my mind: I don't see multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject in the current references. If someone who was involved in the article wants to take a look, I recommend providing WP:Three sources as a starting point and we can go from there. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. To help clarify why Shafik Quoraishee meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO), here are three independent, reliable, and secondary sources that offer significant coverage of his work—not passing mentions or trivial inclusions:

---

1. Nieman Journalism Lab (Harvard), Jan 17, 2024

Title: How The New York Times is building experimental handwriting recognition for its Crosswords app

Link: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/01/how-the-new-york-times-is-building-experimental-handwriting-recognition-for-its-crosswords-app/

This article profiles an engineering effort led by Quoraishee to build an ML handwriting system for NYT’s Crossword app.

It covers technical architecture (CNNs, on-device inference), product decisions, and his role in implementation.

Nieman Lab is editorially independent of the NYT and widely regarded as a reliable source on media and tech.

✅ Independent ✅ Secondary ✅ Reliable ✅ Substantial focus on subject

---

2. Droidcon NYC – Official Speaker Listing (2025)

Link: https://nyc.droidcon.com/speakers/shafik-quoraishee

Shafik is listed as a speaker at this major developer conference, where he presented on ML-based handwriting input for NYT Crossword using TensorFlow Lite.

The profile includes professional background (11+ years Android dev, prior roles at NBA/Business Insider) and links to related publications.

✅ Independent ✅ Secondary ✅ Reliable ✅ Professional recognition

---

3. AI Engineer World’s Fair – Session Abstract (June 5, 2025)

Title: AI and Game Theory: A Case Study on NYT’s Connections

Link: https://www.ai.engineer/schedule (navigate to June 5, Design Engineering track)

Quoraishee gave a scheduled 20-minute talk on using semantic clustering, puzzle-solving models, and graph theory to analyze NYT’s “Connections” game.

The abstract includes conceptual depth, showing this is not just a résumé filler but substantive technical work discussed at scale.

✅ Independent ✅ Secondary ✅ Reliable ✅ Focused on subject’s original contribution

---

Summary

These sources:

Are not self-authored or promotional

Provide significant, sustained attention to Quoraishee’s work

Appear across multiple venues with clear editorial oversight

They satisfy the core of WP:BIO and WP:N—particularly the standard that “significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources” is the bar.

If you need more links, screenshots, or context to verify these directly, I’m happy to provide that. 209.87.169.34 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 is primary and written by the subject. It is likely that the rest of the post has similar basic errors, and may have been regurgitated by a large language model output, so I will not read it in detail. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent WP:SIGCOV. None of the IP's suggestions move the needle. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]