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

Top PHP Studio

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; can't find any coverage besides a master's thesis, which is unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The "review" in the article is not actually a review since it just briefly describes the software with no independent analysis. Not to be confused with PHP Studio by Neometric Software (the developer of this IDE is Cayoren Software) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:13, 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) 18:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meme IDE

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Only coverage that isn't the product's own website is in press releases ([1]) and unreliable blogs and forums (ginktage.com, androidflow.com are defunct blogs). Deproded in 2011. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:41, 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) 17:41, 5 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 ([2], [3]). 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: [4] [5] [6] [7] 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]

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]

Keep. No cases has been made why the sources listed (even if not included as references) as insufficient. Cortador (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several books cited in a newly added 'Further reading' section (not by me) indicate significant coverage in secondary sources. Looking at Google Books, I can confirm that 32-bit disk access is covered at length in these books. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:37, 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: [8] 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]