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

Avolution

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

Created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced for 17 years. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seem to be a few companies using this name [1], [2]... I don't think it's the avocado company, I'm not really sure what the company in this article does. I don't see sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. I don't think AfD was needed in this case. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneArena

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Technology, Computing, Websites, Bulgaria, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layered Image File Format

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. I see it mentioned at Image file format#Other raster formats, but not every format listed there has its own article, so I think nothing would be lost by deleting it. I would also support draftifying the article if someone could show that it is the subject of instruction at schools or third-party manuals, per WP:NSOFT. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Model Context Protocol

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

This article consists of mostly machine-generated text, was not disclosed as being machine-generated when published by the page creator and there are multiple drafts for the same subject (Model Context Protocol, Model Context Protocol 1, Model Context Protocol (MCP)). LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the review. It's not perfect, but still the most in-depth version compared to the competing drafts and even more comprehensive than the Chinese counterpart of the same Wikipedia article on the Model Context Protocol: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B%E4%B8%8A%E4%B8%8B%E6%96%87%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE

It has reached a critical point of notability with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google DeepMind's Gemini supporting it. Feel free to edit it to improve it! Canp (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe parts to rework or to delete, but please keep the article, since relevant and MCP has some momentum, see e.g. InfoQ (Professional Software Development) article https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/04/fastapi-mcp/. Mywikie (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karbon (software)

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

Nonnotble unreferenced piece of software --Altenmann >talk 06:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Sharda

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

Article subject is a child who got a couple of human interest pieces in local news when they started a nonprofit. A single purpose account decided to dodge the AFC queue after getting a decline on their draft (and COI warning besides), so here we are at AFD. There is no sustained coverage, and no real biographical details. This is a clear case of a WP:BLP1E and ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I suspect a WP:COI issue as well. wound theology ◈ 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there is some coverage of debatable significance, the COI point seems strong. Garsh (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Garsh2 @Wound theology. With all due respect, would I be able to provide you both some context in hopes of getting you both to reconsider your votes? WP:COI isn't the subject of this AfD, and even so, i've already disclosed in the past to MrOllie twice that I don't have a COI, and if I did, I would declare it. An article can be rewritten itself, but notability can't be changed, no matter how good an article is. The nominator (MrOllie) proposed that the article is WP:BLP1E and does not merit its own article about the subject itself, but the subject of the article is high-profile (intentionally seeking coverage about themselves or such through interviews, PR, etc), and their independent, reliable coverage has been sustained and not a quick burst. Given this, I would believe that the article falls into WP:GNG, but this is a debatable point, because the subject is a minor. At the very least, if you still believe that the article does not meet WP:GNG, I believe draftification would be a significantly better better option, given that notability is borderline/debatable here. Liahuu (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is not high-profile nor are the sources sustained. The subject is not notable as a coder nor as an author but simply as a 12-year-old who started a nonprofit. Founding a nonprofit is not notable in and of itself; I did it myself my senior year. WP:BLP1E still stands and WP:COI has not been sufficiently addressed. wound theology ◈ 13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLP1E, the subject is a high-profile individual. If you don't mind me asking - how are the sources not sustained? I can agree with you - the subject isn't notable as a coder or author, but is notable for their work with their organization.

I agree - founding a non-profit organization is not notable inherently, as many do. However, my main point was that the kid received extensive, significant coverage about he and his organization, from reliable sources which in my opinion would constitute notability. Again, i'm 100% open to debate about this, because the subject's notability is genuinely borderline and falls in a gray area.

As for WP:COI - how would you like me to address your concerns? With respect, i've addressed your concerns about a potential COI. I wanted to first write an article about the kid's nonprofit organization, but had the article draftified and was told by editors that the nonprofit organization itself hasn't received extensive coverage under WP:NGO, only the kid has. I was encouraged by editors to write about the kid - which I did. I asked around on the Wikipedia Discord and the Kiwi IRC, and the consensus has been 50/50 - a lot of editors have mentioned to me that they feel the article meets WP:GNG with the sources, but a lot of editors have also mentioned to me that this seems to feel like local coverage and that WP:BLP1E would be a strong case in any AfD discussion (which we can see, here). Liahuu (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi @MrOllie! Much thanks for your explanation and review on this subject. I just wanted to clarify a few points.

First, you mention that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. You've already given me a COI warning on my talk page in the past, and i've appropriately responded to such answering that I am aware of such policy and will be disclosing any conflicts of interests I have with any subject. In this case, my reply explicitly mentioned that I do not have a connection to the subject. I also explicitly mentioned this to you on your talk page, for a different (but relevant) draft.
You're also falsely claiming that my account is a "single purpose account" - when, in reality, you're basing this claim off of the action I took to move my draft into the article space. Dodging the AFC queue is not inherently prohibited for autoconfirmed users, and given the long wait time, I explicitly clarified in my edit summary that I would be skipping a AFC review to get a review by a NPP in a faster time frame. You also claim "after getting a decline on their draft" - but if you noticed, that declined draft version was from early March 2025. If I had genuine ill intentions for Wikipedia, I could have easily dodged the AfC process, far earlier, and moved my rejected draft into the mainspace. I made a large amount of edits before resubmitting, and eventually moving my draft into the mainspace.
I would also like to mention that your review of my article about this subject is unjust - you proposed the deletion of my article 20 minutes after it was created, which is clearly in violation of WP:NPPHOUR, as the article does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD.
"There is no sustained coverage" - there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject, and over a sustained period of time. As you can see, the first article covering the kid founding the nonprofit was on January 2, 2024, while there are sources as late as June 2024 covering the kid founding the nonprofit. There's also coverage about the kid's nonprofit starting a new program, etc and the kid's coding skills. Compared to a traditional WP:BLP1E, this spike of coverage has been sustained and the kid is still "relevant", which is a indicator of notability. The subject further doesn't qualify for WP:BLP1E because they are not a low-profile figure, and (no offense) have made attempts to self-promote through press releases, scheduled interviews, and more, which, by definition, makes them a high-profile figure.
Could the article be expanded? Of course. This wasn't something I immediately did, especially given that the subject is WP:CHILD, and I don't want to write too much about them. However, I do definitely think that there are areas of improvement.
A huge majority of your statements seem to WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL - inaccurately portraying the context of the situation. I would strongly ask that you take edits from new editors like me with WP:GOODFAITH. I would love to discuss any potential issues, but would love to do so in a civil manner, instead of making false, slanderous claims.

Liahuu (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that you are a single purpose account is not a 'false claim' - 100% of your editing is either about this person or their nonprofit. You've had more than a month to work on your draft, WP:NPPHOUR clearly does not apply - all that really matters in this AFD is that the coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and your decision to push for an article anyway. Trying to turn this around and making it about me personally will not change that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, i'm not trying to change the topic of this AfD onto you, and I apologize if you feel that way. Claiming that i'm a "single purpose account", though, is personally insulting to me (WP:CIVIL), given that you aren't aware of the future contributions I intend to make on this platform, and simply claiming me as a marketing/spam account is highly offensive and slander when i've clearly mentioned that I don't have a conflict of interest about the subject, and if I did, I would have declared that. However, the COI is not the topic of this AfD, so here's my take on notability.

As for notability, I have mentioned this in my previous answer, but there is a sufficient amount of notability for the subject, which is the primary concern here and the reason this article has been nominated for AfD. WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here because the subject is high-profile (subject has intentionally decided to seek coverage and have published press releases in the past), and they've received sustained coverage (not a burst of coverage in a month or two). By means of WP:GNG, the subject is notable due to independent coverage in multiple sources. Liahuu (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As MrOllie (talk · contribs) explained, as it stands, you are a single-purpose editor. Possible intent to make future contributions elsewhere are irrelevant. Your only edits on Wikipedia have been related to TLEEM and Sharda, therefore you are a single-purpose editor. It really is that simple, and MrOllie was not being uncivil by pointing this out. Nor did he claim you were a marketing or spam account. You are casting aspersions which is itself uncivil. You should also read WP:WIKILAWYER. wound theology ◈ 13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. For that, I apologize for my comments about those topics, since I can see why they have been misinterpreted, as I myself misinterpreted the definition of "single-purpose editor" itself. I also apologize if you felt that I am WP:LAWYERING (I can see how you feel that way). My comments had the sole intention of clarifying on specific points, and I did not mean to be uncivil myself. Liahuu (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note the Random Dude Here (talk · contribs) and Animelofi123 (talk · contribs). There only edits were to add WP:COI notices to their own user pages regarding this page, which presumably didn't exist. wound theology ◈ 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm very hesitant to have articles about minors who don't clearly have ongoing and significant coverage beyond a single event or award. Six months is a long time for a kid but not in the big scheme of things. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Touch

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

The sources are two links to the brand's website and two YouTube videos. I couldn't find any other sources through a WP:BEFORE that demonstrate this product's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, two of the refs link to the company website, and the other two are videos on YouTube which appear to be reviews of the topic. When searching the subject, most of the links that appear are on shopping sites such as eBay and Amazon, and there doesn’t appear to be any real significant coverage of the subject on websites not affiliated with the subject. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. One good reference in Retro Gamer (paywalled [3] or [4]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [5], and I think we have enough for a mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412. Retro Gamer reference is sufficient for inclusion. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A 412. Both Time Extension and Retro Gamer are reliable per WP:VG/RS. --Mika1h (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Riggs

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cmus

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

Notability? TheAwesome Hwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find links to gethub and reddit, some videos on this software, nothing for reviews or anything we need for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Some blogs though, and a brief mention in a book. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources; results give us unreliable websites and guides like [6] and [7]. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REVTeX

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, an inappropriate nomination with zero justification provided. A massive number of sources exist, the package has been around and in use for decades. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for @TheAwesomeHwyh: REVTex is one of the main variants of TeX and LaTeX. It is very widely used in the Astronomy and Physics communities, and sometimes in others. Almost all (probably all) the top journals accept papers formatted using it, for instance Physical Review Letters, Nature (journal), Science (journal) as just three. I suggest withdrawing your AfD.

N.B., I personally hate it and use Microsoft Word, but that does not make it unnotable. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planner (program)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sawfish (window manager)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant independent coverage exists in the books A Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux by Mark G. Sobell (O'Reilly, 2003) and Mastering Linux by Arman Danesh and ‎Michael Jang (Wiley, 2006). There's maybe a dozen pages in the former and one in the latter. A Google Books search shows dozens of other results; most of them seem to be brief mentions but I didn't carefully check all of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock (text editor)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Emacs

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom's github repository has 20k+ stars. For reference, Linux has 192k, spacemacs has 23k. Doom is a popular configuration framework for Emacs these days, and I don't think it's worth removing. Kuromedayo (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniya Agrawal

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

I don't see it, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG, feels WP:ROUTINE. I just don't see anything special here. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. An otherwise non-notable individual, based on a reasonable BEFORE. The event itself doesn't meet any criteria of NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: temporary news WP:NOTNEWS just routine coverage as noted in nom Asteramellus (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - making one news cycle for a protest is basically a classic example of BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and only in WP:ROUTINE news for one time event protesting against Bill Gates and Nadela. RangersRus (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only WP:ROUTINE and failing significant coverage should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere like Gaza war protests or Criticism of Microsoft. There does seem to be a fair bit of coverage of protests againt Microsoft supplying IT tech that is being used by the IDF in the Gaza war, and it should be included in at least one of these articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MXlo

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

No sources, very scant usage of the term mxlo online. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Best Regards (CP) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search also came up empty. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, sure, there is only a single source about this, but given the subject matter, it appears to me that it only ever would be obscure, but then that is when we are supposed to delete a page. If there is some policy or guideline I am missing, then we should consider that, a obscure DNS related record or something of course isn't going to get the same expected SIGCOV. Maybe verifiable technical manuals or something or ancient USENET records. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No the source provided does not mention MXlo. It mentions MX record which has its own article. MXlo is about setting MX record to point to localhost which could be a note on the MX record page if it was a relevant idea (even historically) but I don't think it has that much merit. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deegree

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. 0 sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. MidnightMayhem 14:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google Scholar turns up multiple reliable references —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designbox

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

Non-notable software; can't find any SIGCOV besides a few trivial mentions ([8], [9]). Deproded in 2010 without explanation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has been without sources since it was created and still nothing indicating its notability. Sources in the article are primary to the subject. Mekomo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [10] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep It clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements, and none of the deletion criteria apply.

1. Notability (WP:N)

It has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: ** la Repubblica: “Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. ‘Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale’”.^[1] ** Vice: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone”.^[2] Joseph Cox, “As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits”.^[3] ** TechCrunch: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers”.^[4] ** SC Media: “Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program”.^[5] ** Intelligence Online: “UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution”.^[6] “Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters”.^[7]

2. Verifiability & Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)

All statements are supported by reputable third‑party publications; no self‑published sources are used except for uncontroversial corporate details (founding date, headquarters).

3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)

The article neutrally describes Crowdfense’s business model, pricing, and ethical considerations, with proper attribution (e.g. “According to TechCrunch…”, “Vice reports…”).

4. Deletion Criteria

It is not a trivial or ephemeral subject, nor promotional spam, and contains no copyright or BLP issues.

In summary, it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV. Mollatim (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the references provided miss the mark. For example, the references provided by first-time-contributor Mollatim above mostly fail ORGIND as follows:

la Repubblica (in Italian) article relies entirely on information provided by the founder, Manzoni, who the author met in Rome, and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This first Vice article fails for the same reasons. The author was "told" by Manzoni all of the details and the article has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This also from Vice is totally based on an "announcement" and PR from Manzoni, fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the others above
Techcrunch article based on the company publishing an updated price list and regurgitates from that list what it is offering and what it offered previously. Unfortunately, the company doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, it instead comments on the overall marketplace, and fails to provide in-depth info on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from SCWorld is based on the same "updated price list" information as the TechCrunch article, comes with the obligatory comments from the company, it is regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now. Based on the other references which first-time contributor posted above, none of which come close to meeting NCORP criteria, I'm inclined to assume these also will fail our criteria. Happy to change my stance if somebody can check out those article and confirm I'm mistaken tho. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now

Perhaps something has changed or it is my computer's configuration but both pages are showing the message "An error occurred while loading the page, please contact customer service for assistance." Is this the same message you got?

first-time contributor

Interesting. Before going further I don't think this has any bearing on the notability debate, but a first time contributor with such proper formatting is rare. Hell, I can't format like that. I was curious how the Crowdfense article had grown in size so I looked at the edit history. IP 5.195.224.90 also added intelligence online citations to Zerodium as well as Crowdfense. They did turn up this article which could count towards notability? Article interweaves original thought, even though information still comes from the founder:

The policy of avoiding selling zero-day exploits to certain countries certainly sets Crowdfense apart. But it’s an interesting choice for a company headquartered in a nondemocratic Asian country notorious for both its love of new and expensive technology alongside its longstanding and continuing human rights abuses. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 04:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided by the Mollatim, the knowledgeable first-time contributor, point to a "paid-up subscription" page which is why you see the error message. This link shows a cut-off version inviting a subscription. You can do the same with the second link if you like. I pointed out that Mollatim was a first-time contributor for the same reasons you've highlighted - the editor demonstrates knowledge of formatting and referencing beyond an editor with comparable (lack of) experience. I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Repubblica20190805-1] D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20180425-2] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20190307-3] Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[TechCrunch20240406-4] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[SCMedia20240409-5] Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20230830-6] "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20180516-7] "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]