Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DandelionAndBurdock (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 23 July 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Existence detection.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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

Existence detection

Existence detection (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 reads like and extract from a how-to guide rather than discussion of a notable concept. While the term obviously does exist in the sense it's being used here (existence of files) [1]. There are many more hits for "existence detection" in the sense of detecting the existence of real-world objects in images [2] [3]. In either case I don't believe the term is independently notable. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheoretiCS

TheoretiCS (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)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded with reason " I don't know this journal well enough to be sure it will survive AfD but it shows every signs of being a serious journal with two editors who seem to clearly satisfy notability guidelines. Needs better sources but PROD doesn't allow enough consideration of this." PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this can be sourced, we should keep it. It's a few years old, it should be possible. If it doesn't get sourced, I can't strongly object to those deleting it for that reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Andy, for academic journals it's actually pretty simple: only rarely do there exist reliable sources independent of the journal or its publisher that discuss a journal in depth. What remains is WP:NJournals. While not everybody agrees that meeting NJournals is enough to establish notability, everybody agrees that not meeting NJournals is a strong indicator of lacking notability. In the present case, a Google search does not render anything of interest (hence fails GNG), whereas MIAR indicates that this journal is only included in DOAJ, which does not do anything for notability, meaning that this also fails NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Disclaimer: I believe this is a good journal and have published in it.) At a recent scientific meeting it was announced that this journal would like both to be added to the standard scientific indexes and to Wikipedia. I responded that, for an article to stick, Wikipedia should wait at least until the indexing already happened. Obviously, someone else got the first message but not the second. WP:TOOSOON. We have no independent sourcing at all, not even indexing let alone sourcing that would pass WP:GNG, the controlling notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > Obviously, someone else got the first message but not the second.
    [Page creator here] Just for the record, I have no affiliation or link whatsoever with the board of this journal. (In what context did the meeting you are mentioning take place?) Jean Abou Samra (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The public business meeting of the annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, in Kanazawa a month ago. I would guess that, if they made this sort of announcement there, they're likely to have done so elsewhere as well, such as maybe at STOC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re indexing, FYI: https://dblp.org/streams/journals/theoretics --MRA (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Library Oriented Architecture

Library Oriented Architecture (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:GNG, no significant coverage of this concept outside the personal blog of one Michel Triana. I found that his blog post is referenced in a bachelor's thesis [4] (fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP and is not sigcov anyways). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to PROD this but I chose the wrong option. Oh well. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive & Robust Requirements Specification Process

Comprehensive & Robust Requirements Specification Process (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)

I do not believe this topic meets the notability criteria. A before finds a few mentions of it existing, but nothing covering the topic in depth, merely the topic being discussed when the creator of it is the main focus. Mentioned in one book - by its creator. CoconutOctopus talk 17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK2 (file extension)

PK2 (file extension) (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)

The article was deproded with the rationale to "merge as WP:ATD", but there is nothing to merge, given the article is unreferenced and irrelevant to a typical reader's understanding of the game. It is about a trivial subject that clearly fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The "PK2" extension seems be used by a few unrelated programs. Typically in an internal non-user-facing way. And that's also the case with Silkroad Online as far as I can see. It looks like the only people outside the developers who are even aware of the PK2 files are cheaters. I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be notable in any way. ApLundell (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like WP:Gameguide. IgelRM (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Nation

Quantum Nation (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:NBOOK.

  • Sources 4, 5, and 6 do not mention the book at all (source 5 was published in 2022, before this book was published).
  • Source 10 is a WP:PRIMARY database entry of the book.
  • Sources 1, 3, 7, and 8 are non-notable WP:SPS promotional websites: "authorsofindia.com", "eeherald.com", "analyticsinsight.net", "quantumcomputingreport.com".
  • Source 9 appears to have WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues with the lack of byline and includes this strange disclaimer at the end: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team.
  • Source 2 is available here and is just a WP:TRIVIAL mention of the book. Astaire (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Physics, Computing, and India. Astaire (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing this out Sources 4, 5, 6. To clarify:
    Source 4 is correctly cited for its coverage of the National Quantum Mission, which is a central theme in the book. It provides context and relevance for the material discussed, especially the government’s role and ecosystem development.
    Source 5, although published in 2022, is referenced in the wikipedia article in the context of India’s historical trajectory in the software industry. The book draws on earlier industry developments and analyses, making retrospective reference appropriate.
    Source 6 is included to support the section connecting quantum ideas with ancient Indian texts. While the book itself extends the interpretation, the source provides relevant cultural and philosophical context that enriches this discussion.
    That said, I welcome collaborative efforts to further refine the citations, as Quantum Nation presents original perspectives that have been positively received by readers and experts in India’s quantum and deep tech community.
    Regarding Source 10.
    Source 10 (WorldCat) is used here to verify the existence and library holdings of the book. While it's classified as a primary source in Wikipedia’s guidelines, the fact that the book is held by multiple independent university libraries does suggest curatorial interest and reinforces the book’s credibility.
    Regarding Sources 1, 3, 7 and 8
    I agree regarding 1 and 3 am removing them. But analyticsinsight.net and quantumcomputingreport.com—are widely cited in the quantum technology and tech journalism space and may be considered reliable.
    The book has been recommended as a “Must Read” in the Quantum Vibes Q4 2024 issue which is an official publication hosted at quantumindia.net, a government-supported platform for India’s National Quantum Mission. This adds institutional credibility and helps establish the book's relevance in the quantum ecosystem. I am adding this new source in the wikipedia article for this book.
    I agree that overall the article could benefit from further cleanup and improved sourcing, and I’m happy to work on that. However, I would not recommend deletion at this stage. The book Quantum Nation: India’s Leap into the Future has received significant attention and positive reception across quantum conferences and forums in India. Notably, it was listed as a “Must Read” in Quantum Vibes Q4 2024 — the official publication associated with India’s National Quantum Mission from the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing. This helps establish both relevance and notability. PN2024 (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC) — PN2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The source you added (page 9 of [5]) does not qualify under WP:BKCRIT, which specifically excludes "media re-prints of press releases" and "flap copy". This source does not add any commentary or opinion on the book; it is simply a verbatim reproduction of the publisher's marketing copy: Imagine a universe where every star in the sky and every molecule in your coffee cup forms part of an immense quantum computer... [6] This cannot be used to establish the book's notability. Astaire (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with the characterization that the Quantum Vibes mention should be dismissed from inclusion under WP:BKCRIT. While it includes a summary of the book, it is not a promotional reprint or publisher flap copy. Quantum Vibes is a quarterly publication by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, a neutral, third-party organization with strong ties to the national quantum community. The book was included in a “Must Read” recommendation list in its Q4 2024 issue (page 9), which clearly reflects recognition from within the domain.
    This inclusion demonstrates that Quantum Nation is part of serious discourse in India's quantum innovation landscape. Dismissing this as mere marketing (which the Quantum Vibes mention is clearly not) ignores its relevance as an indicator of community engagement and professional endorsement. PN2024 (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, after we began this discussion, I reviewed several issues of Quantum Vibes and did not come across a single instance of advertising or marketing. The content appears entirely editorial and carefully curated by subject matter experts, which adds to its credibility as an independent and authoritative source. PN2024 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not "include a summary of the book". It is a word-for-word reproduction of the publisher's marketing copy for the book, with no added commentary. Astaire (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It is laughably far from being an actual book review. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand the concern about the use of promotional text, I would like to state my observation that Quantum Vibes is not a promotional newsletter. I believe it’s important to view this in context:
    1. The source is the official newsletter of C-DAC Centre for Development of Advanced Computing — India’s premier R&D institution for IT, electronics, and computing. This isn’t a random publication or a commercial flyer.
    2. The content of the newsletter is editorial and expert-driven. I looked up several names on the editorial board listed at the end, and they are indeed established experts in computing. The rest of the newsletter, too, is written by top experts and maintains a serious, professional tone and there’s no evidence of promotional fluff or random reproductions of press releases.
    3. Most importantly, the tone and framing of the mention clearly position the book as a “must-read” — not merely echoing marketing material but endorsing it through the authority of the institution and its contributors.
    4. Sometimes a brief mention even if it includes book blurbs can function as a clear recommendation or signal of notability, particularly when it comes from a body like C-DAC. Not every review must be a multi-paragraph critical analysis to be meaningful in a notability discussion.
    5. I believe this reference is best understood in spirit, not just word count and in that spirit, it qualifies as an endorsement from a leading national institution in the field. PN2024 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree fully with the analysis of the article's current sourcing, and I didn't find any additional sources that could contribute towards WP:NBOOK after doing my own searches. MCE89 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not to mention challenges due to likely WP:COI. Vegantics (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom source analysis. Svartner (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above source analysis. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete this article. The subject, Quantum Nation: India’s Leap into the Future, has received growing recognition and relevance in India’s quantum technology landscape. I have added a new source from a national quantum mission led official publication.
I request everyone to reconsider. PN2024 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC) — PN2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sources that are not about the book cannot help in establishing notability. It doesn't matter what they claim. The source has to explicitly mention the book and go into depth about it for the source to even begin to get considered as a reliable, notability-granting source. Even if the topic is very notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the parent topic or anyone involved in the book itself. On this note, passing mentions of the book cannot establish notability either. The focus has to be in-depth. You can use WP:TRIVIAL mentions or sourcing pre-dating the book to back up basic, uncontroversial details, but they cannot establish notability. So in this vein, the Mint source isn't really about the book but rather the author and some others in the field. It could be used to help establish notability for the author, but as notability isn't inherited it's not really useful for establishing notability for the book.
With libraries, it's expected that any given book will be held in some collection, somewhere. With university libraries, they pride themselves on having as wide a collection as possible in circulation as it shows off that they have enough money and power to keep many books in circulation and have a wide variety of knowledge. If the book was being preserved in an archive that might be different, as the focus there is preservation, which is often more expensive than circulation. Even then it would depend on the prestigiousness of the university, as Yale is going to be far more selective than a mid-tier university. But that's a moot point here since the book is in general collections, not an archive. NBOOK even states that being held or catalogued by a library is a minimum threshold for something to be considered notable (but is not automatically a sign for or against notability).
Some of the sites are a little dodgy. Analytics Insight offers sponsored content, something that almost always immediately invalidates a source as unbiased and reliable. Pay to play means that you're going to write what the client wants. At the same time, it's not impossible for a site to have this and be considered reliable - it just means that it's going to be much, much more difficult to establish this. You would have to show ample evidence of the site being used as a reliable source by other reliable sources, usually via academic/scholarly sources since those tend to be more choosy with sources. Even then, you would also have to show where the site clearly marks sponsored content, which I don't think Analytics Insight does. This post is almost certainly a sponsored post, given that it outright tells people to buy a specific bitcoin and is written like a press release. It's also not marked as a sponsored post, which leads me to believe that the site doesn't mark sponsored posts, which makes it essentially unusable. Quantum Computing has similar issues in that it also appears to do sponsored content. However even if we argue that it doesn't, the mention on the given source isn't really in-depth. It's a list on a website, where they explicitly tell people that if they purchase through the link, the site gets a cut. The site didn't even really talk the book up, it just summarizes things.
PN2024, my personal recommendation would be to stop focusing on the book and instead look for coverage for the author, to see if he passes WP:NACADEMIC. I would also heavily recommend that you work with someone on creating the page, to ensure that it is neutral and that the sourcing is enough to pass. Offhand his Google Scholar profile suggests that he might pass. You could talk to someone at the computing WikiProject for more help on this end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archetype pattern

Archetype pattern (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 is only one source with no link, and I couldn't find references to this concept via a Google search. The article is also hard to follow 7804j (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elad Walach

Elad Walach (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)

The CSD G11 tag was removed by an IP... Anyways, this individual is not independently notable from Aidoc, the company he co-founded. There are only two sources that ressemble some form of WP:SIGCOV:

  • this article in SOFREP (which describes itself as "part news and part entertainment" and is written by veterans and not professional journalists). It begins with Former Israeli Talpiot Program member Elad Walach and his company Aidoc are doing tremendous things in medical research.
  • this article in The Jerusalem Post, which begins with the A trio of Israeli co-founders of the start-up Aidoc, working on artificial intelligence to refine and quicken how radiologists read X rays.

The other cited sources appear to be either AI slop, WP:FORBES image galleries, or WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE. JBchrch talk 08:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Companies, and Israel. JBchrch talk 08:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Author response: I have improved the article and to now meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for businesspeople, while following the WP:NPOV and WP:RS standards based on the supportive feedback of this community. It now presents a verifiable and neutral biography of an executive actively engaged in the healthcare AI discussion and the impact on clinicians and patients.
    Independent and Reliable Coverage - Elad Walach has received coverage in third-party sources, including Forbes (30 Under 30, AWS clinical AI strategy, and BRIDGE framework), Modern Healthcare (40 Under 40), The Hill (co-authored op-ed with AMA president Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld), Healthcare IT News, and Endovascular Today. These sources provide clear attention from the healthcare industry and establish independent notability.
    Industry Impact - As CEO and co-founder of Aidoc, Walach leads a company whose AI platform is in use at over 2,000 hospitals and has multiple FDA-cleared algorithms. As the head of that company it is important to document his approach and public comments on clinical AI, even if the platform has shown real clinical impact (e.g., stroke care improvements) and operational scale in enterprise health systems.
    Thought Leadership - In 2024–2025, Walach co-developed the BRIDGE framework in collaboration with NVIDIA. This framework for safe and scalable clinical AI deployment has been widely reported on by independent sources such as Forbes, Endovascular Today, and Healthcare IT News. This effort reflects Walach’s active role in shaping emerging clinical AI standards.
    Clear Notability Criteria Met - Walach satisfies Wikipedia’s businessperson notability criteria by:
    - Holding a significant executive role in a company of global reach and regulatory relevance
    - Earning multiple selective honors (e.g., Forbes 30 Under 30, Modern Healthcare 40 Under 40)
    - Receiving substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources
    - Contributing materially to frameworks that guide the industry
    I believe my article has been brought in line with community standards, is neutral in tone, and includes strong citations. Deletion would not reflect the effort and quality now present. The purpose of which, is that he seems to be showing up more in more in these conversations and there does not currently exist a single source like this article that provides a clear picture of what he is working on and how it will impact clinicians, and more importantly, patients (especially in the US). UncleReyRey (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: I appreciate the feedback from the more experienced editors. This is my first article, and while well intentioned, has clearly been a learning experience. Most of my edits to date have been simple updates, fixes or source citations and I will continue to update the article as needed based on the feedback received. UncleReyRey (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. See Google scholar. In the above did you mean to link to WP:FORBESCON? This says written by Forbes Staff but it's just a series of pictures, so anyway, it's a passing mention. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out, I've corrected the nom. JBchrch talk 20:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. The article has been significantly improved and now meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for businesspeople, while adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:RS standards. It presents a verifiable, neutral, and well-sourced biography of a notable executive in the healthcare AI field.

Independent, Reliable Coverage: Elad Walach has received coverage in reputable third-party sources, including Forbes (30 Under 30, AWS clinical AI strategy, and BRIDGE framework), Modern Healthcare (40 Under 40), The Hill (co-authored op-ed with AMA president Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld), Healthcare IT News, and Endovascular Today. These sources provide significant, non-trivial attention and establish independent notability.

Substantial Industry Impact: As CEO and co-founder of Aidoc, Walach leads a company whose AI platform is in use at over 2,000 hospitals and has multiple FDA-cleared algorithms. Under his leadership, the platform has demonstrated real clinical impact (e.g., stroke care improvements) and operational scale in enterprise health systems.

Thought Leadership: In 2024–2025, Walach co-developed the BRIDGE framework in collaboration with NVIDIA. This vendor-neutral, community-aligned framework for safe and scalable clinical AI deployment has been widely reported on by independent sources such as Forbes, Endovascular Today, and Healthcare IT News. This effort reflects Walach’s active role in shaping emerging clinical AI standards.

Clear Notability Criteria Met: Walach satisfies Wikipedia’s businessperson notability criteria by:

  1. Holding a significant executive role in a company of global reach and regulatory relevance;
  2. Earning multiple selective honors (e.g., Forbes 30 Under 30, Modern Healthcare 40 Under 40);
  3. Receiving substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources;
  4. Contributing materially to frameworks that guide the industry.

The article has been brought in line with community standards, is neutral in tone, and includes strong citations. Deletion would not reflect the effort and quality now present. Recommend keep. UncleReyRey (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UncleReyRey: I have collapsed the comment you have posted per WP:AITALK. JBchrch talk 15:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, did I do that part wrong? I needed help taking my copy and converting into Wiki code since I use the visual editor. UncleReyRey (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with my original text only copy UncleReyRey (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Peripherals (disambiguation)

Computer Peripherals (disambiguation) (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 orphan disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). The primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. The page has previously been the subject of moves, a PROD, and Talk page comment. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:41, 20 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. ✗plicit 12:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Huang

Alex Huang (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO, not much WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. I don't know if cloud.com counts as "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". TurboSuperA+(talk) 09:58, 17 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 redirect‎ to Apache CloudStack. ✗plicit 12:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Liang

Sheng Liang (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO, not much WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. I don't know if cloud.com counts as "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". TurboSuperA+(talk) 09:59, 17 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netronome

Netronome (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reputable sources. Article hasn't been updated in years. Only mention of "Metronome" in scholarly literature is when talking about its products, nothing about the company itself. TurboSuperA+(talk) 10:04, 17 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.

ReadPartner

ReadPartner (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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I performed my own searches using Google and did not find anything except this, which looks like AI-generated undisclosed paid news crap, and other sources like that (blogs, product listings, articles filled with SEO-optimized affiliate links). There's simply no usable coverage other than the GeekFlare source, which I can't determine if it's usable or not, but even if it is, one source is not enough. OutsideNormality (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual manufacturing network

Virtual manufacturing network (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 concept doesn't seem to meet notability criteria, and has no sources 7804j (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I withdraw my nomination. The discussion below has convinced me that the topic is notable enough, but just requires more sources. Commenters have provided a few such sources, which I will incorporate in the article. I will also slightly rewrite the article to at least a proper "stub" state, so that it doesn't require deletion.7804j (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real term, but it's not a real article. It says nothing more than a WP:DICDEF and the only source isn't much better. There's potentially scope for writing a useful article here, but this isn't one. No objection to anyone who wants to do that, but otherwise I think we're better without. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Keep, following changes by 7804j making the article more useful and causing it to actually show notability; with the caveat that I would rather it go to a draft named “Virtual manufacturing” where it could be a sub-topic (because as seen 1, 2, 3, and 4 virtual manufacturing should have notability and this probably does have a place as a sub-topic. If this isn’t possible for technical reasons Im also happy to just copy across content. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the article based on the discussions below. Does your "draftify" view still hold considering the new version? 7804j (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG, I'm seeing plenty of substantive hits in Google Scholar. Editorially, I agree with Emily.Owl that we should probably move this page to Virtual manufacturing and add this as a subsection, or we should create Virtual manufacturing and merge this page to it. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we don't have a page on virtual manufacturing I'd support a merge to dynamic manufacturing network instead. Also a virtual manufacturing network is a distinct subset of virtual manufacturing: it's an established network that supports virtual manufacturing, rather than the need to set up ad hoc relationships for the virtual manufacture of each process, as required. Virtual manufacturing is nearly as old as Adam Smith's pin factory; but the idea of a network for it relies on modern techniques in IT: data representation, open standards, metadata, formal quality assurance, licensing of concepts and microcharging. It needs to be a low friction network if it's to work. Watchmakers in the East End of London centuries ago had virtual manufacturing, but not dynamic manufacturing or a network for it. Particular families specialised in particular tasks, such as gear cutting or spring making, but each family was engaged (trapped?) into long-term specialised relations to carry on that one process, usually for one client, long-term.
A virtual manufacturing network today allows flexibility between both client and contractor. The work is fungible, it can be allocated and re-allocated dynamically as needed or convenient. The client doesn't care which contractor carries it out and this can change between quite small batches. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stub for Virtual manufacturing since everyone agrees this is a topic that's notable.
If we agree that "Virtual Manufacturing network" is a thing, I would prefer keeping the article as a dedicated page rather than merging it into some other article. But I'm struggling to find enough relevant sources for it. It seems to me like, even if merged, we would need more than the current one source. If this group finds sources for VMN, I can volunteer to incorporate them into the existing page and restructure the stub as needed (so that we can avoid a deletion) 7804j (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will try and contribute to articles when I have the time. In the mean time here are sources that should related directly to VMNs: in aerospace, more generally. Thanks for volunteering to incorporate sources, Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 05:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Might be a candidate where the article could be improved. Draftify is also an OK outcome for now. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete virtual manufacturing on the basis of missing the point so badly as to be indistinguishable from LLM output (more like Gooogle AI or ChatGPT rather than even Grok). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is for the Virtual Manufacturing Network page, not virtual manufacturing.
    On Virtual Manufacturing: it seems to me that your definition (from your above comment) doesn't match the definition I could find on internet. E.g., you say "Watchmakers in the East End of London centuries ago had virtual manufacturing". How would virtual manufacturing work before the invention of computers? Could you share a source that matches this definition? 7804j (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you build an article purely by 30 seconds Googling and a handful of post-20202015 sources about 'Industry 4.0', don't be surprised if it omits any mentions from Industry 1.0, Industry 2.0 or Industry 3.0. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to sources such as this one, which defines Virtual Manufacturing as "a computer-based technology for defining, simulating, and visualizing the manufacturing process early in the design stage, allowing for the detection and resolution of manufacturing-related issues as well as estimation of manufacturing costs and time." They aren't post-2020 sources.
    Regardless, this seems outside the scope of this deletion discussion since this is for a different page 7804j (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination has been withdrawn, but there are valid Delete and Draftify views here, so this can't be speedy-kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the delete and draftify views were based on the old version of the article, before I expanded it, and were primarily due to quality rather than notability. So I'm not sure they are still relevant 7804j (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Control Theory

Collaborative Control Theory (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)

I suspect this article is either original research or doesn't meet notability criteria (in addition to being too technical for most readers to understand).

Collaborative control as a general concept makes sense. But it's not clear to me that "CCT" as it is branded in this page is really a distinct concept that's widely recognized and clearly defined by the broader academic community. For example, the article states that there are 8 core principles, and goes on with very precise naming for them. However, when Googling some of these principles in conjunction (e.g., "Collaboration Requirement Planning" "e-Work Parallelism"), I find only a dozen of articles with very few citations. In general, while many articles talk about "collaborative control", but they don't seem to refer specifically to "CCT" as it is defined here.

I am not familiar with the area, so I would like the community's opinion on this. I would have no strong opinions if people think this article should be kept. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article seems to have major issues that should be addressed. I'm not an expert on the article's subject matter, but the WP:CONTEXT issues are the biggest problem IMO as I wasn't able to understand anything about the topic from reading it. Some possible COPYVIO and OR signs. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There appears to be a concept buried in here screaming and trying to get out from the weight of the unnecessarily verbose prose. See [10]. I'm not familiar with the consensus behind draftifying if the subject might be notable based on a few papers that cover it, but the article is poorly written. It is an orphan and has been flagged for being too technical, and has been ignored for 7 years. It has to be rewritten somehow to make it useful, or deleted. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:17, 24 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]
  • Comment: Given an AfD was proposed and closed with keep less than a month ago and given further comments here in this thread already that suggest significant improvements can be made, per WP:RENOM I believe that it should be speedy closed. Note that this doesn't rule out future nominations. WeWake (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 21 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1302133272"