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

Patrick Naughton

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

Secondary sources about his programming career don't show any significant coverage, only sparse mentions of him alongside many other Sun employees. Being part of the 13-people team that developed the earliest versions of Java does not make one worthy of a stand-alone article. He briefly appeared in the news due to a criminal prosecution, but not everyone who is prosecuted for a crime deserves a stand-alone page either. The defense used in his trial was scarcely "novel" or invented by his lawyer, because it had already been successfully used in 1995, 5 years prior. The crime was not unusual even for the time and the trial was immediately forgotten by the media after it ended. V. S. Video (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost notable as the programmer, the crime doesn't seem that notable either. Sources are brief mentions, as explained. I don't see much more about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ZDNet contributor piece from 2000 [1], I really don't know how RS that is. ZD Net was a big deal back in the day. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Computing, Internet, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete: The book he wrote could have saved this but it's also non-notable. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 12:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an obvious redirect target: Java (programming language). The article subject is mentioned in the History section. Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in the Brazilian industry

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

This is a procedural nomination. The author of this article created a similar one, named Machine learning in Brazilian industry, three weeks ago. Last week, it was deleted in an AfD I closed, essentially unanimously. The new article is worded differently (although likely using the same LLM), and the sources are only partially overlapping, so this doesn't qualify for G4. However, since this covers the same subject as the one that was deemed non-notable, I figured it was worth bringing here. I have no opinion about the article or the subject itself. Kudos to Hammersoft for bringing this to my attention. Pinging all participants of the previous AfD: @Helpful Raccoon, As above, RS Tgn, Suriname0, Metallurgist, Caleb Stanford, Barnards.tar.gz, and Svartner:. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Brazil. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My problem is not even with the topic of the article, which I have little knowledge about to cast a vote, but with the massive use of LLM per R. S. Tognetti in the previous AfD. It seems out of scope to me. Svartner (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article is new. The subject itself has a claim to notability. Google searching this yields many results. It is also of academic interest putting "AI Brazil industry" into the WP:TWL search bar gives many results. However this single author may need some help from the community to bring the article to the quality for a main page.

Czarking0 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify for the same reasons as Machine learning in Brazilian industry. Did the author of the article go through AfC? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s plausible to me that there is a version of this article that could be acceptable, along the lines of Artificial intelligence industry in India, Artificial intelligence industry in Italy, and Artificial intelligence industry in the United Kingdom, and if this article were to be developed, it should probably be renamed to Artificial intelligence industry in Brazil. So, rename, draftify, and strongly warn the author against the use of LLMs. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this route. Didn't know about the other articles. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and rename to Artificial intelligence industry in Brazil. Topic is plausibly notable but needs heavy rework. मल्ल (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per others, particularly User:Barnards.tar.gz. Suriname0 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Design Automation for Quantum Circuits

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

This is hopelessly unsalvageable AI slop. Well over a third of the references are made up by AI. Cleaning up is impossible, and if a topic exists, this needs to be WP:TNT'd to have a hope of being anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are references gotten from published journals and conferences and books from reputable publishers. It was confirmed before adding. Chukwunalu J. Asuai JPNARPHY (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know which references are believed to have been taken from AI because they were well sourced from reliable journals and books.

Also, from the point of starting this article up until when it was submitted, there has been little or no use of AI to constitute the whole writing.

Kindly let me know what made the article be nominated for deletion, and I will correct it. Chukwunalu J. Asuai JPNARPHY (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb I would like to know which references are believed to have been taken from AI because they were well sourced from reliable journals and books.

Also, from the point of starting this article up until when it was submitted, there has been little or no use of AI to constitute the whole writing.

Kindly let me know what made the article be nominated for deletion, and I will correct it. Chukwunalu J. Asuai

Chukwunalu J. Asuai JPNARPHY (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalete. As above, it is a hopelessly unsalvageable AI slop. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too technical for an encyclopedia to the point of being incomprehensible to most of the readership (let alone average readers), and has unencyclopedic phrasing, too (e.g., "Before diving deeper, it's helpful to understand..."). Ira Leviton (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- if "too technical", we can always request author of article to simplify contents to some degree for more general viewership, as even in wikipedia with its diverse range of subjects and interests will of course have different readers and this includes of course even the niche ones, did a random check on the citations list, so far ones I checked does seem to actual link to real websites and not just AI hallucinations. Can those who opted to delete for reasons of AI made, point out specifically the citations that are? Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westlock Interlocking

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

Seems like there might be sources to write a decent page, but this isn't it. It reads like a WP:PROMO for a commercial product, likely COI issues and might even have been cut&pasted from somewhere else JMWt (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

add entry at computer-based interlocking#Brands and redirect there. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Abstraction Layer

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

Non-notable engine that fails WP:GNG. Was dePROD'd due to incoming links, but the vast majority of them are just transcluded from a template. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:45, 24 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) 08:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:50, 25 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence detection

(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) [2]. There are many more hits for "existence detection" in the sense of detecting the existence of real-world objects in images [3] [4]. In either case I don't believe the term is independently notable. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Can't see any way for this to pass WP:N Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Plus this is such a simple concept that I doubt any notability would ever exist. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't have computer science knowledge to say more about the concept, but per the above comments, the concept is rather simple to not be independently notable so deletion will suffice. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:56, 30 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.

TheoretiCS

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Computing. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep As yet, this fails WP:V / WP:RS. Accordingly it would be a target for deletion. However I'm not going to !vote delete on something for that reason when it's barely a week since it was created.

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any article to which this could be merged/redirected? Overlay journal, perhaps (which looks like it could use a list of examples)? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:40, 30 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Library Oriented Architecture

(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 [5] (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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:58, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive & Robust Requirements Specification Process

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Software. CoconutOctopus talk 17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like this process never gained any traction or received much attention at all. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:07, 22 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.

Virtual manufacturing network

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Technology, and Computing. 7804j (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like a AI generated article.--FreaksIn 18:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article based on the discussions below. Does your "delete" view still hold considering the new version? 7804j (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a decade-old article, BTW, so not AI.

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-~~2020~~2015 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. 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 [6]. 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:

(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.

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.

Yakhno, Tatyana (12 October 2004), Advances in Information Systems: Third International Conference, ADVIS 2004, Izmir, Turkey, October 20-22, 2004. Proceedings, Springer, p. 606, ISBN 978-3-540-23478-4

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.

Freire, Mário Marques; Chemouil, Prosper; Lorenz, Pascal; Gravey, Annie (April 6, 2011). Universal Multiservice Networks: Third European Conference, ECUMN 2004, Porto, Portugal, October 25-27. 2004, Proceedings. Springer. p. 41. ISBN 978-3-540-30197-4. Retrieved July 3, 2025.

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."

Gervasi, Osvaldo (August 29, 2007). Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2007: International Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 26-29, 2007. Proceedings, Part II. Springer. p. 796. ISBN 978-3-540-74477-1. Retrieved July 3, 2025. The Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol standard defines, then, a framework for extensible SNMP agents. It characterizes entities called master agents and subagents and a protocol (AgentX) that integrates them.

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.

Szczuka, Marcin; Kryszkiewicz, Marzena; Jensen, Richard; Hu, Qinghua (9 June 2010), Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing: 7th International Conference, RSCTC 2010, Warsaw, Poland, June 28-30, 2010 Proceedings, Springer, p. 462, ISBN 978-3-642-13528-6

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.

Mathis, Matt, John Heffner, and Raghu Reddy. Web100: Extended TCP Instrumentation for Research, Education and Diagnosis ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 33.3 (2003): 69-79.

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Delete the page page really lacks significant reliable sources for the subject's notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]