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

Amnon Meyers

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. See Google scholar. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sparse publications and citations in a very heavily cited area mean he does not pass WP:PROF#C1. The article focuses on his business for which we need WP:GNG-compliant sources and we have none. News and web searches found nothing usable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bordering on speedy. No sign that I see of WP:NPROF notability, no serious assertion (at least with sources) made of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far below number of citations or awards needed for this field for WP:PROF and as David said above no GNG pass either. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines v. Crowdstrike

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

We already have an article on the 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I don't think that this lawsuit is independently notable. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Aviation, Computing, and United States of America. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a sufficient amount of coverage on this topic to merit an independent article? The article looks reasonably well written but we could do with less fragmentation so I would lean merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption absent strong evidence that the present article will continue to grow beyond what the other article can accommodate. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear per nom which notability criteria it fails to meet – if there's sufficient GNG, it should be kept and in this case it seems that the lawsuit independently has been covered in reliable sources in-depth. WeWake (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I agree with @Caleb Stanford this article seems OK but it's got a lot of overlap and also deals with three different lawsuits - Delta v CS, CS v Delta, and passengers vs CS. The case is still in early proceedings, perhaps if this ends up making some legal precedent it will be worth having a separate page. Oblivy (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption per WP:NOPAGE. The lawsuits form part of a notable event but do not need an article of their own; there is already a lot of overlap with the disruption page. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian keyboard layout

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

Contested redirect several times without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show independent notability. And currently not enough sourcing to pass WP:VERIFY. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this less notable than Romanian keyboard layout, Icelandic keyboard layout, Icelandic keyboard layout, etc.? In your view, should all of these be merged into List of QWERTY keyboard language variants? Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at the other ones in depth, but please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If they are as poorly sourced as this one, then yes, as an ATD, redirecting to the variant page would be preferable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I was asking for your opinion. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random map

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

"Random map" appears to be an uncommonly used term. This page seems to fail WP:GNG and at most should likely be merged with procedural generation or just deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed the article shouldn't exist on its own. Undecided on deleting, merging as the nom mentions, or merging to the glossary of video game terms. I support any except retaining the stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense to me. Procedural generation already primarily focuses on video games, and has room for expansion. +1 to mention at glossary of video game terms also. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (may be redirect to entry in glossary; nothing is actually properly inline-cited to merge). It is a broad yet specialised concept and the current article has not established the actual subject as consistently seen in reliable sources. It's like having an article for "magic damage" or "jump attack". It's too broad for Wikipedia for sources to meaningfully tie the term across the multitude or variations without it all becoming SYNTH. Like, isn't this just a hand-picked subset of procedural generation with no clear delineation? — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rackspace Technology

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria
— User:Julian in LA 18:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

They previously attempted to PROD this with the same rationale, but after getting a seconding it was declined due to the article's sourcing. I offer no opinion or comment on that or anything else; I am merely procedurally nominating an article that had its talk page nominated instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add that Julian in LA gives further elaboration on their opinion of the sources on the talk page. (Again, I am neutral and offer no opinion of my own.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, China, Hong Kong, India, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Texas, and Virginia. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at google scholar found an entire chapter on the company in Beginning PostgreSQL on the Cloud : Simplifying Database As a Service on Cloud Platforms (2018). And articles like this[1] about a service outage and this [2] about the company's future were already in the article. And articles like Rackspace Hires Morgan Stanley to Help Evaluate Options [3] round out the picture that this is a significant market player.
I've looked at the talk page analysis and am still puzzled as to the logic behind this nomination. I would encourage @Julian in LA to spend time participating in NCORP/NORG AfD's before attempting further nominations. Oblivy (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to complain about Netherzone adding this to the deletion sorting lists of every country where the company has an office, but hey, look, they get sigcov here too [4][5][6]. So, thanks Netherzone! Toadspike [Talk] 07:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article isn't perfect, but the large list of references appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gnits standards

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

I don't see any independent coverage of these standards; suggest a merge or redirect to GNU Project (I would suggest GNU coding standards, but that doesn't seem notable either...) Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into GNU Coding Standards (reliable sources for which are discussed on its own AfD page). —Psychonaut (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? If so, to which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's safe to just delete this - the work this group did has since been incorporated into guidance in several GNU manuals, so redirecting to GNU Coding Standards alone wouldn't really be appropriate, and it seems like a fairly unlikely search term. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into GNU coding standards, seems to be some content worth saving there. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GNU coding standards: per above WeWake (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]