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

Daniel Tobok

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

Not seeing WP:GNG being met. It is clear from one of the references ("Marketing, Branding & Public Relations Fast-Track Cyber Security Start-up") that he has spent a lot of work on his marketing and this has generated a lot of press releases and interviews used in this article, but there's nothing here that I consider to be in-depth, independent coverage about the man himself. He has written a book, published about 6 months ago, but it hasn't garnered a single review on Amazon. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bibliographies, and Computing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for two reasons. First, it's WP:TOOSOON: his book was only recently published and has yet to get reviews. The appearances on TV are by him, not about him, so none of them contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk)
Delete. I removed much of the blatant PR from the article; note that Stojan and his firm are SEO/PR flacks that have been spamming Wikipedia for ages. The previously removed USA Today 'contributor' piece was directly from another SEO firm. There's also a version of article with pretty much the same junk sourcing that was deleted by Jimfbleak last year. I can't seem to find much else; it's challenging to pick out reliable material from the flood of PR. The book is odd; I can't find anything on the publisher "Manhattan Business Press"; it only seems to have published this one work and the address is to a small law firm. The article states the publisher is "Pearl Street Sourcing Advisory Services", which contradicts the first few pages of the book itself. Not clear, but does not appear to be a notable work in any way.Sam Kuru (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – A couple of the references are OK in my opinion, but that is not enough to meet notability.Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SweetSpecter

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT and WP:PERP. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Research

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

non-notable company that apparently has a lot of money. everything is interviews or press releases. maybe too soon, maybe just never notable. but either way, it's not notable as it stands. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator); company has significant coverage in several articles in VentureBeat (WP:VENTUREBEAT) and Fortune, and therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The articles in VentureBeat particularly are far more than just press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Crypto is questionable at best but it's basically just a rehashed interview. Fortune is also pretty terrible for the same reasons and it's just a press release without saying as much. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that in reverse, Fortune is the interview, Venture Crypto is basically a PR/interview rehashed. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENTUREBEAT is listed as reliable at WP:RSP without exceptions. Has there been some discussion that they are unreliable on crypto news? The articles themselves are in-depth and technical, far more than just rehashed press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Computing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a propaganda piece for a company with no notable achievement that lives of social media hype. Their biggest achievement is a fine-tune of openweight models (Hermes) that barely improves the benchmark scores and has no community relevance outside of their social media circles. Sumosacerdote (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Turnbull

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Computing, and Software. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - very poorly written. TNT? I'm not !voting because he's a friend of a friend. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources merely confirm books he's written. Lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Noble (computer scientist)

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

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The award might be notable, but there is nothing to be found in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor. Gnews also has nothing. The article is unsourced, so could be a hoax? There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.

Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The GS profile shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the Dahl-Nygaard Prize contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your GS profile link goes elsewhere; I think you want this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger, your nomination is taken as a delete !vote. You can't also !vote in the discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV

why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).

In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are James Noble (the connection between username is obvious) you can request self-deletion of your article per WP:BLPREQUEST, I'd look into that if you don't want an article (Assuming you are James Noble). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:PROF per David Eppstein's analysis, so I would normally be in favor of Keep, but as of writing this comment, the article has zero sources. Perhaps it might be a good idea to Draftify so an editor can complete the article. Madeleine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it can be sourced to his 2022 curriculum vitae. It's obviously not independent, so usable only for uncontrove×rsial education and career details, not evaluation and opinion, but I think that's all we really need. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he passes PROF, we need more sources than just one, which would violate our rules against WP:OR and WP:BLP. We also recently deleted the article of a notable dancer who was featured in a documentary about Madonna, because it was substantially an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that NPROF applies here and even that he potentially passes NPROF? If we agree on that, NPROF states that the guideline is independent from WP:BIO and is explicitly an alternative path to notability and that any reliable source that demonstrates NPROF#1 or NPROF#2 is sufficient. Your request for additional sources again is covered by NPROF which clearly states that no independent sources to confirm trivial undisputed facts are required under NPROF. Are you disputing that a reliable source exists to demonstrate that he passes NPROF or are you unhappy with NPROF as a guideline itself? Because reading your argument it seems you are trying to challenge NPROF itself and its assertion that it provides an alternative path to notability independent of GNG. However this AfD is not the correct place to have this discussion, if you disagree with NPROF itself, we should have this discussion over there. --hroest 15:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it isn't a usable independent source, he has a bio here that might indicate other places to look for further information. He is an adjunct prof, but was a prof from 2003 to 2022, and seems to be currently freelancing. His CV (very detailed) lists other awards. Would confirming those add to notability? Lamona (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into the awards, although most are not "big" - these are awards given to the "best paper" at a conference, and I don't think they are enough for notability:
- Best Paper Award, Eighth European Conference on Pattern Languages of Program Design (EuroPLoP) 2003
- Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference “Best Paper Award” 2010.
This also does not seem to be notable in the WP sense:
- VUW PGSA Award: Best Supervisor in the Faculty of Engineering 2010.
This is the only one I have so far been able to confirm that might be significant but not sufficient:
- The ACM SIGPLAN Most Influential OOPSLA Paper for 2008, was shared by the three authors of the paper: David G. Clarke, John M. Potter, and James Noble
Lamona (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPROF states 'Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources', but no reliable sources (a CV isn't reliable its self-published) have been presented. Notability ultimately cannot override WP:V and if there are no reliable sources to use we simply cannot maintain an article irrespective of SNGs. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle the reliable sources in this case are Scopus and Google Scholar to substantiate the claim he passes NPROF#1 and the organization providing the award for the claim he passes NPROF#2. All of these sources are independent from the subject and can be considered reliable. But yes, just trusting the CV doesnt do but these sources hold up. --hroest 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly can you write with these sources? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle Nothing per se but that is not the point, the point is that reliable, independent sources establish notability and the article can then be written per his CV / institutional page and biography on the award homepage as WP:NPROF intended. There is a very specific reason things are done this way for academics, to avoid the embarrassment of the Donna Strickland case. Often academics do not have SIGCOV but are notable due to their contributions to advance human knowledge in a field as judged by experts in that specific field but not widely known to the general public. --hroest 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY states 'Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article' and WP:SNG states 'Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.' If we cannot write an actual article with reliable independent sources then we should not have one. NPROF allows for less coverage but there should still be something so we can have an actual article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a medium citation field, as backed up by Google Scholar [1]. I don't think that the editorship of the series Transactions on Pattern Languages [2] passes NPROF C8, but it may give some support. I take the Dahl-Nygaard prize somewhat more seriously for NPROF C2 [3]. I am skeptical of NPROF C3 -- the British Computer Society fellowship, per their description [4] does not seem to be the kind of fellowship that we're looking for. The Institute of IT Professional fellowship looks a little stronger [5], although I'm uncertain whether it is the kind of scholarly society that we are looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor being discussed has recently added a lengthy comment to a talk page discussion here. It may or may not be relevant to this discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPROF is a guideline and WP:V is a policy. WP:DELETION, which is also policy states 'If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.'

Simply put if we do not have any sources to verify basic details to have an actual article and not just a list of his papers and awards we should not have an article, irrespective of any WP:SNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per David Eppstein, he meets WP:PROF. I have added back two sources - the 2016 Dahl-Nygaard Prize winners (which includes a bio of Noble), and his Victoria University Wellington profile. Such university profile pages are the main source of info for academics - their notability comes through the criteria listed at WP:PROF. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did add back two sources. The nominator of this AfD (who deleted text and refs before bringing the article to AfD) has deleted the university profile, with the edit summary "Best not to edit this article while an AFD is taking place." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states clearly WP:EDITATAFD "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period." RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F6 disk

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CouponBirds

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

References do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "businessing" looks like a vanity 'interview' site which advertised paid placement and guest/sponsored posting. 'dailymail' is a depreciated source and the other remaining media sources are simply noting survey results and other content marketing from the company. A large amount of SEO/PR and other paid placement was removed from the article before it was moved to articlespace by the declared paid creator. I was not able to find any reliable sources specific to the company in a search. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used are not substantial (App Store, Microsoft Edge Addons, Chrome Web Store, LSU Financial Aid, "Favorite Chrome extensions"), are not more than trivial mentions (The Guardian, CBS News), are not independent of the company (Businessing Magazine), or are published by unreliable or questionable sources (International Scholarships Search, Mail Online, Newsweek). I did some searching but did not find much - this company's reports are cited often, but only by articles that list the "top 50 CostCo snacks", etc. Not in-depth coverage. -- Recon rabbit 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO, promotional article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another failed paid editing attempt by someone who does not understand WP:NCORP. References fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Professional Certification

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

I could not find any secondary sources that are not user-generated about this certification system. This certification is not even mentioned on Ubuntu or Canonical's page. Online searches yield no results from ProQuest or Google, and there does not seem like there is a quality redirect target. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. The forum source doesn't count towards notability. I can't access the other one due to the Wayback Machine being blocked on my work internet, but given that it's from Canonical themselves, it's irrelevant anyway for notability purposes. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the other source now that I'm home, and yeah it's just a press release. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have considered a redirect to Linux Professional Institute. However, I don't think "Ubuntu Professional Certification" was the official name ever. The author of the Wikipedia article probably took it from Canonical's announcement headline. The course was, as specified in the official announcement and other materials, Ubuntu Certified Professional. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kashem Mia

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

Passing mentions only, need evidence for WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory also, not every person deserves a article unless their contributions are detailed and in-depth sources, even 1, must be cited, not just name but also birth, birth place, education and position in work/jobs. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

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

I couldn't find secondary sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability. The best I could find was that [6] mentions them in passing and says they folded "some time after 2010", similarly [7] mentions them to say they've been "discontinued". [8] mentions they 'resurfaced with the “Open Source Hardware Certification” programme of the Open Source Hardware Association in 2018' but doesn't source that or give further info.

When I tried to PROD the article a year ago, User:Jueneu said on the talk page they were still active but I can't find any significant coverage since then, just some self-published content around "ohanda.one". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that would qualify this for WP:NORG. Appears to be defunct and was never particularly notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Open hardware. The organization does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT for a standalone article, but a mention at Open hardware seems to be warranted given it has been (briefly) discussed in reliable sources such as [9] (published by Oxford University Press) or [10] (published by Taylor & Francis). MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open hardware per MarioGom. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StartKey

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

This article regards an initiative that never progressed beyond initial press. The subject is not notable. — Greentryst ^T_C 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to the nominator, I have only been able to find announcements about the initial collaboration between Sandisk and Microsoft. All coverage is routine and does not make for a notable prototype or product. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classifier (UML)

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

This is clearly more like a guide than an encyclopedia article. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unified Modeling Language. Hyper-specific UML concept that does not need a standalone page. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This edit, which is still present in the current page, mentions it took material from another website - is that a copyright violation? – numbermaniac 08:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Sultan Midani

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a game designer and businessperson, and added an interview. The current references are two interviews, a non-independent source which mentions him in passing (fi.co), a deadlink and a site which doesn't mention this person. I cannot find more to add, although I may be missing coverage in other languages. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, Computing, and Tunisia. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have suggested a redirect to DigitalMania but I AfDed that article too for similar reasons. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I believe the company page would be notable (see my !vote here) but not the founder. There is one good source on the founder but nothing else I can find that would show how he meets either WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DigitalMania Not notable for stand alone article. Seems more relevant on his company page. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DigitalMania AFD closed as keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XB Machine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to xB Browser. It has been discussed mostly in connection to the xB Browser project [11][12][13]. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much coverage about the machine itself. Redirect xB browser is an ok alternative too.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough. It didn't have enough coverage in the 2000s and doesn't have enough now. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an anonymous editor using an Orange España IP address removed refs before this AfD was initiated.^diff MarioGom subsequently restored them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure any of them are reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Clenpr (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants evaluate refs. It’s always inappropriate to delete any refs just before an AfD. Another editor thought the same thing and reverted those deletions. Editors are always sizing up their peers for trustworthiness and credibility. This type of thing doesn’t help. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your assessment for those references? Are them reliable sources? Clenpr (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided 3 sources above, which are way enough for a redirect. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RTP payload formats

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of RTP payload formats.

I agree with User:Pppery that this article is sort of a list, but disagree that this is inappropriate. The table that constitues the bulk of the article gives context and explanation, refuting the argument on directories and catalogs. Instead, it describes a notable subject: the fact that there exist plethora of RTP payloads. It serves as a stepping stone for further investigation and research for those with further interest.

I also disagree with User:MarioGom that a redirect should suffice and with User:Wcquidditch that the existence is sufficiently described in the main article. The referenced section only briefly summarises the large number of different formats.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment here (until now) has purely been deletion sorting; I have (and had) no opinion on the article. It is Anonrfjwhuikdzz that says that material at the main article — which I will note is Real-time Transport Protocol — is sufficient. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be find with a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not convinced and exhaustive list is appropriate for wikipedia as we're not supposed to be a directory/catalog --- that's a job for the RFC series. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC Editor only lists all RFCs and makes them available. It is not a function of the RFC Editor to present overviews per subject of any kind. The overview presented in RTP payload formats, compiled by many editors, stands on its own and has become a de facto source on the subject. This is reflected in the number of visitors of the page. Deletion would be a disservice to the public, IMHO; a rename better reflects the nature of the article.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NLIST: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. Rename to List of RTP payload formats if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats per MarioGom. There is already a section in RTP main page. This looks like a list and notability is not really clear for a stand alone article. But it can be integrated to Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Standards_documents. I also do not think wikipedia is a repsitory of stuff, when external links can be used for a database that has such standards. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, Do you think that the WP:LISTN standard is met? If so, would you be happy if we renamed the article to make it clear that it is a list and closed this AfD.

As a stand-alone article, it sounds like you're making a WP:NOT argument. What section of that policy do you think applies here? I guess WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be the most likely mapping for repository of stuff but I personally don't see a clear match to this situation. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this meets WP:NLIST. Renaming may not help. I think an external link would be better than using Wikipedia as a depository. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MarioGom and Ramos1990 have suggested redirecting which I assume means they don't believe we should have a stand-alone article/list on this topic. Without providing a reason for this preference, I assume/hope whoever closes this discussion will not give these opinions much weight. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explained more on my reasoning. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced this article is not acting as a directory for RFC articles/RTP payloads. Yes there is some discussion of these formats as a group which would qualify this for NLIST, but the arguments in favor of deletion/redirection have centered around what WP:ISNOT.

Outside of the opening summary there is not much providing context for the protocols. I don't understand the reasoning from @Dandorid that the table provides context or explanation to these protocols. These are just very basic summaries of the protocol specifications from my reading, but where is the context about development and uses that makes these entries something more than WP:NOTPLOT? Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA, so why not just link to their website in the main RTP protocol article for people with further interest? The only parts of the table that provided additional context were certain descriptions detailing changes in payload type/the reasons for reserved blocks but those specific instances could easily be added to the prose at Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats.

All of that said, I do want to change my vote to redirct with the target being the most appropriate section of Real-time Transport Protocol. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge with some other article, but absolutely don't delete the content. This article just helped me out today. Félix An (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates my point. Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA would be great to have, but I doubt it actually exists, Ramos1990. I believe this article summarises the wealth of options, in a way that a picture tells more than a thousand words. If you would summarise this page somewhere in a section of Real-time transport protocol you would need more than a thousand words to do the summary right.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Keep or Rename. There is a dynamic that some fail to see here: Wikipedia is a primary source of information to many people. A sort of low information entropy: a concentration, a density, brought together by people that felt a certain need to do so. Destroying a page like this increases information entropy, which leaves you with a greater burden of finding the information (which undoubtedly exists in many places) yourself, and you only get it in bits and pieces. Most likely, somebody will recreate this page somewhere in the future, for the same reasons User:Sergeymasushko had when creating RTP payload formats. — _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an utterly meaningless argument - by this logic one should never delete anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the main idea of WP:Inclusionism on Wikipedia, and I support inclusionism. After all, WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we already have Britannica, which is generally more reliable than Wikipedia (see WP:CW), and only chooses the most notable topics. I think the advantage of Wikipedia is that it covers more niche topics compared to a traditional encyclopedia such as Britannica, which is why I'm an inclusionist. I usually read Britannica to get a broad overview of more popular topics, and I use Wikipedia for more niche topics like computing (this article) and railways. Félix An (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOSSO

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have added 2 refs. One is a journal article and the other is a book chapter however the book is published by IGI Global which has a poor reputation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of single sign-on implementations where it is already mentioned. I'm unable to assess the new sources from A. B. and have not been able to find any of my own. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIS (file format)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. I just added 4 references found using the Google Scholar and Google Books link on this page above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Symbian, without prejudice of re-creation with proper sources and references. In its current form, this is an article that should have gone through WP:BLAR easily. MarioGom (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable.

80.212.144.89 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more inputs on the newly added sources and the ATD proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Symbian#Design. Not enough notability for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixhawk

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

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's lots of results in Google Books and Google Scholar. None of is enough? I could not get access to many of them, so I couldn't fully assess. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The main issue here seems to be lack of independent sources covering the standard. There are quite a few academic references, but the only highly cited papers seem to be the original publications on the standard. If someone finds better sources, ping me and I'll likely shift my vote as it looks like there is some research on this for use in military (i.e. Ukrainian) drone programs. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engaging participation here to discuss above comments. If someone can add sources here as suggested and evaluate them, the discussion will see a clear consensus. If needed, ping me, I will take part in the evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended reality

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

Taking to AFD as a courtesy for further consensus. Whether this topic is genuinely distinct from virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality has been disputed by an editor. The editor has attempted to make WP:BOLD mergers of this page into augmented reality, under an argument that the topic of "extended reality" is only synonymous with augmented reality, and that "pages should represent real things, rather than concepts that only exist in academia". ViperSnake151 Talk 01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear original research. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a high amount of coverage in academic sources (papers and books), a dedicated academic conference (International Conference on Extended Reality), IEEE participation, coverage in publications in journals from various fields (Computer Science, medical practice, geo-information). MarioGom (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of what? Augmented reality and virtual reality? The concept of "extended reality" is simply a buzzword. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about your opinion (or anyone else's), it's about what reliable sources say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page. After all, Extended reality is a GROUP of things, and that's what a disambiguation page is for, I think. I have made a draft for it. SeaDragon1 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not as a DAB. I find quite a lot of high-quality scholarly sourcing that assesses XR overall. See [19] [20] [21] [22]. They are especially common for subject specific applications, like education, medicine, spines, and architecture. I agree that it's an umbrella concept for VR/AR/MR, but one of the key goals of an umbrella concept is that it allows us to discuss a group all at once; since there are sources about XR at the big-umbrella level, they give the topic standalone notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, hoping to have additional discussion for whether keep/delete or other to have a clear consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]