Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Computing

Machine learning in Brazilian industry

Machine learning in Brazilian industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This essay-like article, the result of a student assignment, really needs either WP:TNT or draftification since it is a mess of WP:SYNTH. Most of the sources are either: (a) not about machine learning/AI, (b) not about Brazilian industry, (c) WP:Primary government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos". Draftification was contested. Possibly AI-generated as well. One of the few relevant secondary sources, On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, is non-independent since the authors are part of organizations that partner with the observatory.

If this is draftified, we should require the authors to submit through WP:AFC since they already contested draftification without solving the underlying problems. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the highlighted points:
items a) and b) I kindly ask you to highlighted the references are not regarding ML/AI or brazilian industry sector because we took the information direct from the sources of the references and almost all of them are about AI aplication and/or brazilian industry or its sectors.
c) Regarding government documents, e.g. "Plano IA para o Bem de Todos" and others as bills, they are all public and to improve the access to the readers I just have inserted the PDF link access to the document. Those documents talk about what brazilan government and congress plan to do to improve AI aplication in Brazil and therefore we consider extremily important to the article.
Regarding On the Brazilian Observatory for Artificial Intelligence, we have removed it and replaced for the public access article that raises the same issue about the concernings about privacy policies of AI.
I am totally avaliable to make this work. Please anallyse the response and if necessary any more improvements I am on to do it.
thanks dears for the contributions. R. S. Tognetti (Hi!) (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, your sources are either about AI or Brazilian industry, but not both. Combining sources that are just one or the other is WP:SYNTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Critic Review Aggregator

Cult Critic Review Aggregator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non notable publication. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Noting WP:NEWSORGINDIA, refbombed to PR rehashes, dead, and primary sources. Even most of the PR rehashes are for other things and do not even verify content here. Part of a promotion platform with the likes of Tagore International Film Festival, World Film Carnival Singapore, Luis Bunuel Memorial Awards, Cult Critic Movie Awards, Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. Buy an award, earn a review on Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Visual arts, Entertainment, Games, Technology, Computing, Internet, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: using this revision for source numners.
    Sources [1], [2], [7], and [13] make brief insignificant mention of subject (simply mention that Cult Critic gave movie awards at a film festival). Similarly source [9] makes brief mention as part of a listicle article and so doesn’t give notability.
    Sources [3], [6], [10], [11], and [12] are simply reviews or lists of reviews/rewards. This means they are not independent and do not give notability.
    Sources [4], [5], [8], and [13] all were inaccessible to me and so I can’t comment on them.
    My own attempt at WP:BEFORE using google news and a standard google search did not reveal sources that could convey notability. However, it did reveal that Cult Critic has ran a couple of film festivals/awards cerimonies. If someone can convince me that this conveys notability I may be inclined to change my opinion (and thus !vote). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 20:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With the film festival/award, it's somewhat a case of "who is reporting and in what context". It's not ideal, but an argument could be made for notability if the award results were reprinted by multiple notable outlets. This specifically refers to reprints like this, where a major outlet reprints the list. The gist behind this is that major outlets like say, Variety or Locus are going to be selective in what award results they reprint, so they're not going to reprint some random film festival or award. For example, Dead Meat is a notable YouTube channel and has a pretty well received awards ceremony, but few outlets reprint the results because even with the channel's substantial following they just can't justify it. (Even Bloody Disgusting only reported on the awards once.) Of note, what wouldn't count towards this would be local papers writing about how their local person won an award. The focus there isn't really the award and local coverage of that nature is typically seen as a weak source at best.
    With that in mind, I took a look for the award/festival in specific and didn't find anything that would establish that the award is notable. No opinion on the aggregator as of yet, but the site's award/festival cannot help in establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A search didn't really take long, as there is really nothing out there. What coverage exists is pretty light and not enough on its own to establish notability. I'm aware that the site is based out of India and that Google doesn't always properly search Indian sources, but there's not really anything to help argue that more/better sourcing exists. If anyone can find anything, I'm open to changing my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xenics Creative

Xenics Creative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly primary sources given. Searching in Korean I can't find much in news sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Extensibility Protocol

AfDs for this article:
Agent Extensibility Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is supported entirely by primary source research articles with very few to no citations. Several of the sources are only passing mentions, and none of them are in reliable venues in computer networking (e.g., NSDI or SIGCOMM). Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG.

I raised some concerns at the the previous deletion discussion but those voting to keep did not reply, so I did a more more in-depth analysis of the sources which I will include below.

Analysis of the sources
  • Zheng, Dawei (30 December 2015), Control, Mechatronics and Automation Technology, CRC Press, p. 123, ISBN 978-1-315-75215-0

Passing mention, primary, not SIGCOV. This is incorrectly cited. The correct citation is: Hu, Shu, and Jia Liu. "Design and implementation of a cross-platform and cross-method SNMP extension MIB system." Control, Mechatronics and Automation Technology: Proceedings of the International Conference on Control, Mechatronics and Automation Technology (ICCMAT 2014), July 24-25, 2014, Beijing, China. CRC Press, 2015. This is an esoteric research article with a total of 0 citations.

Passing mention, primary, not SIGCOV. The correct citation is: Kim, Taehyoun, et al. "Virtual-IP zone algorithm in IP micro mobility environments." International Conference on Advances in Information Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. It has a total of 0 citations.

Also incorrectly cited: The correct citation is: Cuadra-Sanchez, Antonio, and Clara Casas-Caballero. "End-to-end quality of service monitoring in convergent iptv platforms." 2009 Third International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies. IEEE, 2009. The article does not appear to mention the "Agent Extensibility Protocol."

Also incorrectly cited: the correct citation is: Pacheco, Vinícius, and Ricardo Puttini. "An administration structure for the OLSR protocol." International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. This article has 7 citations on Google scholar.

Also incorrectly cited: The correct citation is: Komorowski, Michał. "Configuration management of mobile agents based on snmp." International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. The article has 1 total citation and it is a passing mention.

Summary: The sources used to support the article are mostly esoteric, relatively uncited or not cited research articles, mostly primary sources. Several of them include only passing mentions of the subject. The articles are published in various conference proceedings, none of them in top conferences in networking or artificial intelligence. It is not clear if any of the articles is independent of the subject.

Thank you, Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on Caleb Stanford‘s detailed source analysis. Well done. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see several issues with the noms analysis that will be helpful to clarify. Of the three types of concerns raised – (a) incorrect citation formats or links, (b) Primary/secondary sourcing and significant coverage, and (c) reliability of the sources; (b) and (c) are the main AfD concerns as first can be easily corrected by any editor. Overall, for (b) several sources have been labeled as "primary," but I am not sure how that assessment was made — were those books/publications written by AgentX authors or the same working group? Per WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. and that doesn't seem to apply to these. Source comments below (based on which my current recommendation is based on):
    • Ref 1 – ref correction is valid. Unsure how it's primary, and appears more than trivial mention. For reliability, a broader consensus or discussion might be needed.
    • Refs 2 and 3 – they actually appear to refer to the same conference submission available here Choi, YH., Kim, B., Park, J. (2004). End-to-End Quality of Service Monitoring Using ICMP and SNMP. ECUMN 2004. I would replace both with these and it does mention AgentX protocol in sufficient detail.
    • Ref 4 – ref correction is appropriate. 7 citations is not nothing, so perhaps a broader discussion might be needed re: reliability
    • Ref 5 – ref correction is appropriate; agree with passing mention.
    • Ref 6 (new, not added to the article yet) – Mauro, Douglas R.; Schmidt, Kevin James; Schmidt, Kevin J. (2001). Essential SNMP. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ISBN 978-0-596-00020-2. Retrieved July 16, 2025. talks about AgentX with significant detail and has been cited many times per google scholar.
    • Ref 7 (new, not added) – Subramanyan, Rajesh, Jose Miguel-Alonso, and Jose AB Fortes. "A scalable SNMP-based distributed monitoring system for heterogeneous network computing." SC'00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing. IEEE, 2000. has been cited 75 times per GS and has a paragraph about AgentX.
    • — WeWake (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeWake: thanks for digging up these additional sources. Some comments
ECUMN is not a great conference in computer networking. It's a ranking of C according to conferenceranks and ICORE.
My understanding from WP:SCHOLARSHIP is that original research published in research articles is primary. This does vary, for example, if there is a review article or a textbook, that would be classified as secondary.
The biggest issue with Refs 1-5 is that they are not in reliable venues in computer networking. RSCTC and ICCSA are also rated as C, I did not find the others (International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications and International Conference on Advances in Information Systems) in ICORE.
Refs. 6 and 7: Nice find on these. SC and O'Reilly are good sources, and these look secondary and reliable. I would classify Ref. 7 as still a passing mention (all the article says is it "provides a method to distribute MIB variables among subagents, thus distributing agent's tasks"). Nevertheless, it's better than what we have. If the article passes AfD I would say we should go ahead and add 6-7 to incorporate in the article and remove most or all of 1-5. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I looked for sources in NSDI and SIGCOMM which might mention Agent Extensibility Protocol or AgentX. I found this source in SIGCOMM 2003, but it's only a passing mention.
Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary/secondary distinction is mostly a red herring here. WP:PRIMARYINPART is a useful essay, clarifying that whether a source is primary or secondary is contextual. WP:GNG tell us that these sources need to be secondary for the topic on which we cite them. For a peer-reviewed paper (conference or journal), the four qualities I look for are independence (none of the authors have an obvious COI, such as being on the relevant standards working committee), reliability (is it a reasonable publisher, are there obvious problems with the prose, etc.), sigcov (is it more than just a brief mention), and analysis (is it summarizing, describing, or synthesizing the information I want to cite [versus presenting novel data]). In the case of ref 7, it checks all of the boxes except WP:SIGCOV. If the authors contrasted their approach with AgentX in a few more sentences, I would "count" it toward meeting WP:GNG. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Suriname0: this clarifies and that was in line with my understanding! Ref. 6 appears to be the best source at present with a longer (several paragraph) description of AgentX, though it describes it as a work-in-progress (I guess this was as of 2001). Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word processor program

Word processor program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]
  • 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

Shafik Quoraishee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Beginthread

Beginthread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Apryse

Apryse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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:
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]

Delta Air Lines v. Crowdstrike

Delta Air Lines v. Crowdstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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

Random map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1300750547"