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

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 ([1], [2]). 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]

Virtual Storage Personal Computing

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

Non-notable IBM service. Fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any sources about it expect one small 40-year old German article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources which meet WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was definitely not a niche service when it was offered (I used it around 1980), although it was subsequently quickly made obsolete by the Personal Computer. I was about fifteen years old at that time, so most of the users of VSPC will be retired or dead by now, and hence do not bother to digitize old documentation that they may still have. For a service more than 40 years old, the lack of information available online should not be a killer criterion. The documentation consisted of nice papercover books in A4 format, IIRC, and should still be available from national libraries. VSPC is history worth remembering. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage can be found in old Computerworld, Computer Weekly, and Datamation magazines: [3] [4] [5] [6] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Helpful Raccoon’s good work. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table-oriented programming

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither of the two existing refs mention the subject. Searches turned up lots of mentions, mostly on unreliable sources. Could not find any in-depth coverage of the sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created here on Wikipedia directly by TimNelson (talk · contribs) at the same time as a Tim Nelson created https://wayland.github.io/table-oriented-programming/TOP/Introduction/What.xml that is the same thing. It is a violation of our no original research policy to use Wikipedia as a direct publication platform for a new thesis. It's not the same as the last time, true, Girth Summit, but it is equally as vague and woolly. Commenters on lobste.rs (that weren't those acknowledging a connection to the author) noted that it could cover practically anything where a table was somehow involved, and that's nowhere near being the level of peer review and acknowledgement by the world at large that this needs. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unsourced essay of synthesis and original research. From Day One, Wikipedia has never published original research. There are plenty of other places to publish this content, but not here. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping above - I had no recollection of having declined a speedy on this article, but the history tells me I did so I must have! My decline should not be read as any sort of endorsement of the article, I merely compared it with the previous version, saw that it wasn't the same text, noted that there was a >10 year gap between the two, and thought that a speedy deletion wasn't appropriate. No objection from me if the consensus is to delete this version. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Data-Link Interface

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ODI is historically notable as part of the Netware and Mac ecosystems. --Zac67 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate how this passes WP:NSOFT, citing which criteria and reference(s) that support your assertion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The binding guideline is WP:GNG. WP:NSOFT is not a guideline:

"This is a WikiProject advice page on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest."
"An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an important and widely written-about standard. Multiple refs are available using the Google Books and Google Scholar links at the top of this AfD. I've added several refs to the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also note that the pre-AfD “Further Reading” section also supplies references establishing notability.It contains 6 books along with the relevant page numbers. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit disk access

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Nom's only contributions have only been deletion votes or creations with zero contribs in article space (likely not their first new account rodeo) and the subject has two sources to pass GNG. Nom also advances no argument beyond a WP cite, so they could be asking for deletion because someone cut them off in traffic and we wouldn't really know. Nathannah • 📮 18:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to be objective and express any concern about deleting the article, and not about other editors. 85.48.187.219 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is subject to scrutiny for why and how they brought a deletion and is allowed to be questioned for their rationale if they're purposefully vague and do not have an edit in mainspace. And I'm going to give you a friendly reminder that we look dimly on sockpuppetry. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this account and IPs are the same user that has been discussed here. It's likely a dynamic IP who doesn't log in for some reason except when nominating at WP:AFD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are not valid references to demonstrate notability. 84.78.243.9 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, the nominator and other commenters do matter. For instance, we have a guideline WP:POINT. It certainly doesn't make it better that not only one, but three unknown people show up, the two IPs being from the same European capital city. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a bit obscure and the article does a poor job of putting it in context. That being said there is some good information here. Probably merge into Windows 3.1 would be a reasonable outcome. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 5 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: [7] 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]

NEMO (Stellar Dynamics Toolbox)

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

Non-notable stellar dynamics toolkit. No coverage beyond a couple papers and a brief mention in a 1997 book. Note: the article was also started by one of the toolkit's co-creators. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Computing. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Piet Hut: This software is used or mentioned in hundreds of independent publications, although none of them appear to discuss the software in detail. It should be discussed in some article even though it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. I would seriously consider revising the guidelines to allow articles like this to be kept, similar to how WP:NMEDIA and WP:NPERIODICAL have a criterion for publications that are widely cited by other reliable sources, but that is a discussion for a different time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "merge" I mean adding a single sentence to Piet Hut. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge – Per Helpful Raccoon. The relevant content can be migrated to a new section. Svartner (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Friedman

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

I found this article that is directly about him (but it is more of an interview). Other than that, coverage is mainly based on mentions or is directly about Scribd, a company he co-founded. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, Internet, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Scribd. I agree there's no established notability outside of that, and the article itself is full of refbombing and casual namedrops. Ravenswing 17:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Named by Time Magazine Top Tech Pioneer, co-founder Scribd, and Y Combinator partner. — ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What notability criteria do you claim any of the above meets? Notability is not inherited. Ravenswing 15:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Scribd. The original article is, frankly, a mess, and apart from the two articles mentioned (interview and Times article), I'm having trouble finding mentions of his name that aren't from social media sites. Xarinu (Talk 2 Me :] ) 03:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively with Scribd, which does not currently mention the opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act, nor that TIME named Adler and Friedman as tech pioneers in 2010. I do not find any significant coverage of him - even the TIME article is more about Scribd than about Adler and Friedman. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]