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

Cyber security in the United Kingdom

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

Article with unclear scope, indiscriminate collection of facts. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Kingdom. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't need its own article. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would merge a very short overview of some of the info in this article to Computer_security#National_actions under new subheading for United Kingdom. Too much of this article is unsourced WP:SYNTH and not notable enough for a standalone article. Noticed that the UK doesn't have a section in Cyberattacks_by_country so I'll add info there. Orange sticker (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layer 8

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

If I understand the topic correctly, Layer 8 is a humorous term used to refer to the user. But the article is not about users; it is about Layer 8 as a word. And I don't consider that word notable under WP:GNG. What is more important: usage of a word isn't coverage of the word. Mere usage doesn't constitute SIGCOV. Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Internet. Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanza (computing)

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

Appears to violate WP:NOTDICT. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not Wiktionary. Felicia (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EMILE

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

Non-notable orphaned stub. No citations and I couldn't find anything relevant about it from mainstream news sources. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. GrinningIodize (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom CabinetCavers (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers Are People Too

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

Non notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reviews found, nothing much comes up in Gsearch, some links to watch the film, blogs discussing it. Sourcing now in the article is rather brief. I don't see notability Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films about computers#Documentaries per WP:ATD.--~2025-40435-92 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest specifically List_of_films_about_computers#Hacking_as_a_plot_narrative - it's listed there. I do notice that almost all of the films on the page have articles. I saw only a single redlink. Was or is there some requirement on the page for all of the films to have articles? If any page would have that requirement, I could see this one kind of falling into that since there are so many films that could qualify here. I'm not opposed to the redirect, I just want to make sure that it wouldn't get wiped out later if there is that sort of requirement there. One of the hackers in the film does have an article and we could have a few sentences there about the documentary. It wouldn't be as good of a fit as the list, but if the list is an issue it's an OK alternative. Plus a tiny bit fitting since the documentary is about being people and the redirect would go to one such person. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm OK with both, if everyone agrees on one, but the film is listed in the other only). ~2025-40435-92 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to have it in the hacking section only - the way I see it, the computer documentary section is meant for those documentaries that are so general that they don't fit into a more specific section elsewhere. If there's a more specific section that fits, then use that section because otherwise, everything in the article could fit until the main computer section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggeted above, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 21:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Evolution (conference)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. All of the cited sources are from the official website or affiliated websites, and I'm not finding any coverage in independent sources. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Kunimune has made a good point. The article can certainly do with better sources. Clearly too many are from primary sources in the sense of Wikipedia. Not all are from "affiliated websites" as referred to above. Does the website of anyone referred to in an article become an affiliated website? I suggest not, their employer is not affiliated to the subject (for the academics referred to in this article). Propose: add primary source maintenance tag. Search for better secondary sources will take time due to current position in calendar year, and will probably need to continue into 2026. Thus propose Keep.Worramlaup21 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested I have added a {{primary source}} maintenance tag and made some other minor edits. I will not be able to make adequate changes in to the article in the Wikipedia mainspace before the closure of this discussion, because I will be unavailable between 20th December 2025 and 2nd January 2026 (see Not available for response to topics on this Talk page 20th December 2025 to 2nd January 2026). Accordingly I propose ~~Keep~~Userfy/Draftify. I will respond to either of these actions if taken, in January 2026. I have very limited time to edit Wikipedia further today and tomorrow.Worramlaup21 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPLASH (conference)

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

Declined prod. Based entirely on primary sources. Basically a list of conference dates. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find sources indicating how many people attend or other details that might count towards notability. I will also comment that the reason quoted for deprodding (WP:NJOURNALS#2) makes no sense to me. Not only is that an essay, not policy, this is not a journal.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Very Large Data Bases

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

Declined prod based on meeting NJOURNALS (which is an essay). Based on 1 primary source. Article is basically a list of conference dates. 1 google scholar hit. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Computing. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this meets NJournals, let alone GNG. Also, this stub does not contain any content of encyclopedic value (if this miraculously survives this AfD, the long list of venues and *flags* needs to be removed). --Randykitty (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to very large database. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all you can find in Gbooks are conference proceedings. Gscholar has one hit. The one source used now used in the article is primary. Next to nothing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Foundation

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

This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources. From a Google search, I wasn't able to find a single usable secondary source about the subject, so it seems clear to me that this doesn't meet WP:NORG. WikiFouf (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search return plenty of secondary sources:

I'm really not convinced about the first three (#1 appears to be some kind of quoted press release [Also, does that site have editorial oversight?]. I'm not sure what #2 is but it doesn't seem to have editorial oversight either, and isn't WP:SIGCOV. #3 also isn't SIGCOV.) The last two look good but are about the same event, I'm not sure this would be enough to base an encyclopedic article on. @Smonff have you found anything else? — WikiFouf (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4039070.html and https://www.i-programmer.info/news/136-open-source/3712-perl-foundation-receives-cash-injection.html maybe? Smonff (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation has been legally registered in the US since 2000. Does it help? Smonff (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Mongers

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

This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources. From a Google search, I wasn't able to find a single usable secondary source about the subject, so it seems clear to me that this doesn't meet WP:NORG. (Note: I realized there are a number of related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regrettably (as a former member of a Perl Mongers chapter), I must concur with the reasoning of this nomination. — Hex • talk 12:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PerlMonks

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

This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources. From a Google search, I wasn't able to find a single usable secondary source about the subject, so it seems clear to me that this doesn't meet WP:NORG. (Note: I realized there are a number of related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV found to prove notability. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl virtual machine

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

This article is not referenced by any secondary sources. From a Google search, I haven't found any source that could be used. (Note: I found a number of Perl-related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct and they were created by different editors, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Perl Conference

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

This article is unreferenced. From a Google search, I found no usable secondary sources about it. (Note: I found a number of Perl-related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct and they were created by different editors, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, The Python Conference page is also unreferenced? Instead of erasing the historical memory of tens of thousands of people who attended those events (I myself attended a couple), what needs to be done is to improve the article so that it has the same quality as the Python Conference page and those for other programming languages. The fact that there are no references to it on Google doesn't mean that there weren't numerous Perl fan pages recounting their experiences from those days. In fact, it's still being held. The last one was this year, in June. There are 125 articles that link to this page. And versions in three languages (Spanish, French, and Dutch). JoaquinFerrero (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a nice reference on The Perl Foundation's official website, which recounts the first 25 years. It explains how the conferences organized by the O'Reilly company (The O'Reilly Pearl Conference in 1997) would evolve into the OSCON conference, and later into the YAPC.

https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/the_first_twenty-five_years JoaquinFerrero (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joab Rosenberg

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

Tagged for notability since August, I don’t think this subject is a GNG pass. The companies he has run may be notable (not sure, haven’t looked into it) but this bio relies entirely on mentions in sector news and likely based in press releases. There may be in depth coverage in Hebrew sources that I haven’t found but based on the sourcing currently in the article, I think deletion is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CICS Transaction Gateway

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 IndiGo disruption

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

Disruptions are rarely considered notable on their own. Same is true for 2025 Cloudflare outage which was taken from the main article and copied into a separate article before being redirected back. This is similar to the 2025 Airbus A320 software update Afd. Falls into WP:Not news.

Creator on their own decided to split from the main article "from IndiGo#IndiGo December 2025 service disruption on the lines of 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption, 2022 Southwest Airlines scheduling crisis; given that this is the biggest airline in India with mass scale disruptions and theres a lot of background related to new flight rules I think its worth a separate article" - but no split discussion was had nor does it warrant one as this could have just stayed on the main article where it was in the first place. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination completely misinterprets WP:NOTNEWS by treating a historic operational meltdown as if it were just a routine service hiccup. We aren't talking about a 'bad week' for an airline here; this is a major aviation event that forced immediate government intervention on pricing and even led to DGCA officials being fired. That level of fallout leaves a permanent mark on the history of Indian aviation, which sets it miles apart from a temporary software glitch. The coverage has been massive and detailed across international media, so it easily clears the bar for WP:GNG. Trying to merge this much substantive information would completely wreck the balance of the parent article. Jībanmṛta^message 19:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. Ongoing event that may, or may not, meet the WP:NEVENT guidelines requiring sustained, significant coverage. The article itself says the event is ongoing, there's no need to rush to write it. nf utvol (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well sourced, and most likely meets WP:NEVENT, considering the impact of the event across India. It also led to delay in implementation of government policy. Just because an event is ongoing doesn't mean we should not have an article for it, WP:NEVENT itself says "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." so this cannot be used as a criterion. Per WP:RAPID, I don't think this nomination should have occurred in the first place. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the creator of this article, I think that the disruptions have lasting notability. Compared to the A320 update, which had a relatively minor and short impact for its size and can be effectively summarized in a paragraph, the schedule disruption/crisis/meltdown of India's biggest airline has been considered one of the biggest crises in Indian aviation ever. Additionally, the cause of the disruption will lead to further investigation from MoCA/DGCA and continuing questions from civil society about airline monopolization, labor rights etc. Perhaps the article as it stands is too based on current coverage but that simply requires a rewrite as the crisis comes to an end and more developments arise in the aftermath. MSG17 (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disruption is still ongoing even after 11 days and is the worst in the history of Indian Aviation, with 4000+ flight cancellations in just one week. Almost certainly meets the criteria of WP:EVENT. Keep in mind that the crisis caused a loss of around ₹40,000 crore which equates to $4.4B in just the first week. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 13:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is WP:NOTNEWS until the news becomes lasting and notable enough based on WP:SIGCOV which is now well established for this event. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetech

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

Completely non-notable subject. None of the articles cited are about Cemetech and mention it either in passing or not at all. OmegaAOL talk? 15:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Software, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage, and fairly blatant AI-generated text. Bearian (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Comparing edits since 2019 show no significant changes have been kept since A.I.-generated content was mainstreamed. While I don't see any issues with the current article or its sources, most of the sources (approximately 22 of 32?) are related to projects pioneered by the founder of Cemetech on the site. The article could benefit from more sources that directly reference the site itself, but this does not itself warrant deletion. LogicalJoe3.14 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Running the introduction section through zerogpt.plus shows 'Mostly Human'. PokémonPerson 16:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appinventiv

AfDs for this article:

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

Corporate spam for an IT company. Tried to G11 it, keeps getting reverted. The last AfD made it very clear this is not a suitable topic, but lets try again. MediaKyle (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and India. MediaKyle (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article about an insignificant company fails WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 🄻 🄰 14:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the number of employees of the company (1,600) and not routine media exist suggesting it's notability to keep its own article in Wikipedia.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom these types of spammy and non-WP:NCORP meeting companies should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Left guide (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Colloquium for Theoretical Computer Science

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

Completely promotional article with no references apart from a single external link. Additionally, it fails WP:GNG. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and apparent close paraphrasing [1] [2] REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not finding enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability of the org.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails with External links being the sourcing. That is not how references work, and from those links we do not see notability established. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Emma Haruka Iwao

AfDs for this article:

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

Let's try this again. This article was nominated at AFD about 6 years ago which was closed as no consensus (although I think there was at least a rough consensus to delete even then). The primary concern here is that this was a case of WP:BLP1E, surrounding a fairly minor achievement that made the rounds in the popular press and then quickly died out again. The intervening years have only solidified this view, as I can find no real additional coverage of Iwao, especially independent of this one event (doing a record-setting calculation of the digits of pi). That record has been surpassed at least 3 times since this article was written, once by Iwao again, and twice by two others. It's also worth noting that this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power and time at it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and Computing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is impeccably referenced and the subject's claim to fame justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. I would also respectfully disagree with the assertion that "this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive." Capt. Milokan (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references are irrelevant in the face of WP:BLP1E. And there is no real claim to fame here. It's a fairly trivial accomplishment in the wake of ever-increasing available computing power, that made the rounds for a week or so because it coincided with Pi Day, and made a for a nice light-news-day type story. After that, it quickly faded; there's been no lasting coverage or impact on anything. Something like this doesn't magically endow one with the right to inclusion on Wikipedia. She didn't develop the algorithm to compute pi; she didn't write the program to compute pi; she just ran it. This is a nothing burger. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was hoping time would have helped put this one in perspective, but let me elaborate by reiterating the salient part of BLP1E:
We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
Number 1 is pretty clear and I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. As for number 2, after this was over, there's been no coverage of Iwao, so she has pretty clearly remained a low-profile individual. Number 3 is probably the most arguable, but as I pointed out above; this is not a particularly impressive accomplishment. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power at y-cruncher. This record has been broken 3 times in the the 6 years since, and will likely be broken more times as computing power increases and people with the resources to do it feel like doing it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Pi#Modern_quest_for_more_digits or alternatively Chronology_of_computation_of_π seems reasonable, because her name and achievement are documented in both places; by all means merge a few extra references across if readers are likely to be interested in her personal background. Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Guinness record isn't notable, by itself... Some coverage in the BBC [3], CBS News [4] and the WaPo [5], I'd say that amounts to a one-time notability for the event, so a case if 1E. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She set a record, there was a bunch of press about it (e.g. NPR and BBC). She set the record again three years later, there was again a bunch of press about it (e.g. Fast Company and Engadget). That's not BLP1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chronology of computation of π. The available sources are typical pop-science clickbait/silly season material, and that's just not good enough. I agree with the assessment above that using a pre-existing implementation of a pre-existing algorithm and just running it on a bigger computer is not a stand-out achievement. Of the available redirect targets, Chronology of computation of π has the most mentions of Iwao and is least likely to see those mentions removed in a future condensation. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to gauge what is or is not a "stand-out achievement" is WP:OR. We defer to reliable sources to determine what's worthy of note -- and what's worthy of note may not be the most impressive achievement to someone in the field. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more WP:OR than most of the evaluations that happen during an AfD: judging whether sources are reliable, whether coverage is "significant", etc. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The standard is WP:N, which is based on sourcing, and we evaluate sourcing according to another set of criteria at WP:RS. "Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is basically WP:GNG, which is one of the ways to be considered notable. There no "dismiss top-tier news sources if you know the Truth about the experiment not being impressive enough to confer notable" guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have BLP1E to consider, which I think very clearly does point us away from having an article for Iwao. As does WP:ANYBIO, for which this very much fails to meet. But we also do have some latitude to exercise a little common sense and editorial discretion over what "notability" is...and here, we a little bit of very light news coverage of a record-setting pi computation, along with some surface-level interviews with the person who pushed the button on the computer to execute it. This just doesn't cut it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have BLP1E to consider - Why? Press coverage for two records, three years apart per my !vote. If those two events are somehow BLP1E because they're for the same thing, I suppose athletes are broadly BLP1E as they just play the same sport over and over. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same basic event twice. Having your record broken and then taking it back doesn't cut it. Besides, the coverage is of the event, not the person. And even that fails WP:NEVENT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hence not one event. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A !redirect to the "Chronology" article as suggested above, would be fine, as an ATD. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable Codonified (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTABLE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chronology of computation of π per Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. Most of the media coverage features Google heavily since the mathematics community and the journalists are aware that this achievement is mostly due to computing power. Rolluik (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chronology of computation of π. This is not WP:BLP1E because she set the record twice. However the coverage is about the record, not her. This is why the article sources parts of its biographical information from Twtter, blogs, and Linkedin. If trimmed, the article would be almost a duplicate of the redirect target. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been in-depth coverage about her on NPR and in Pink News, and her work popularizing cloud computing is just enough to get her past WP:BARE. The article needs copy editing, but normal processes can fix it. AfD is not primarily about making fixes like that. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI datacenter

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Original reasoning was This is a rambling, borderline incoherent writing that jumps from topic to topic at random and is completely unfocused. Redirecting to the main data center page as I don't believe that AI Datacenters are notable by themselves even if properly written. Author has stated that it supposedly is a "work in progress" but I'm not sure how credible that claim is... it would take a huge amount of work to make what currently exists acceptable. Note that I am skipping the step of draftifying since I have a feeling the creator would just revert that as well. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Article is work in progress. First step was to write down immediate notes. It is all focused on the topic of AI datacenter. There is much to write and there is much discussion in the news and internet on this topic, reaching all way to the whitehouse. I reviewed the process of draftifying. I think the article will get more edits where it is.

On the topic of notability: the article has 30+ references including links to whitehouse discussion and some of the most important companies in the world. I find the argument of lack of notability absurd.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Done editing for now. Thanks for the help. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Wikishovel (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs. 15 and 20 are enough to satisfy SIGCOV, and I think the topic is distinct enough from "data center" more generally to have an article (the sources seem to suggest AI datacenters are unique, and based on my limited knowledge I would agree). But the article right now is a hot mess, with much better sourcing needed and considerable copyediting for clarity and coherence. Frankly the article isn't ready for mainspace so I could accept draftify as my second choice. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Sounds like it is a work in progress so let's keep it in draft space and have it go through the normal AfC process? I am skeptical this is a necessary content fork of "datacenter" since there isn't that much different when it comes to AI datacenters. From my view they have extreme size/power/volatile memory/parallelism requirements but in a certain sense that is just the expected result of exponential growth in computation. I vote draftify and we can see how it ends up after further editing to judge whether it is a necessary/unnecessary content fork. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why sounds like? Have you bothered to look at the article? There are many differences outlined in the article. The 50 references and external links are unique for ai datacenters and are not generically talking about datacenter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge certainly data centre should include some information about AI datacentres, but not like this. Joe (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems to have been improved substantially from the time at which it was nominated. Seems well-written, and I would agree that this topic is unique enough to merit its own article, glancing through the sources looks pretty good. I'd say the article needs work but not deletion any longer. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote to Redirect to data center. I suggested draftify before since the article seemed poorly written + actively being worked on and I didn't do a full in-depth look at all the sourcing b/c it seemed like a clear WP:REFBOMB. I had expected some sourcing to be good, but no reliable sources are providing a clear distinction between an "AI datacenter" and "A data center for AI". As I stated in my earlier comment, data centers being used for AI are not much different than "traditional" data centers. They have a higher degree of power/parallelism/cooling requirements, but data centers have always trended in that direction.

For those voting to keep, links to high quality sources showing a clear distinction between "AI datacenters" and larger/more advanced datacenters would be helpful for other voters. Ref numbers in the article are changing with edits. Of the sources currently in the article, this one from PCMag[6] meets reliability/depth criteria for data centers but notably never uses the phrase "AI data center". Most other reliable sources are talking about infrastructure build out and not about what constitutes an "AI datacenter" vs a bigger, more advanced "traditional" data center. Sources that are making a distinction between types seem to be user-generated and aren't reliable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: This New York Times article[7] differentiates between AI data centers and traditional ones by pointing out that AI data centers use water differently and have specialized hardware. The article should also be renamed to "AI data center" instead of "AI datacenter". I'll help with improving the article. The article will also need to be improved per Wikipedia:Reliable sources regarding source quality. TotalVibe945 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your points suggest to me a DRAFTITY would be a more proper and feasible outcome. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TCPaccess

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

Fails WP:GNG and also not found any WP:RS Clenpr (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperable Object Reference

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

Unsourced since 2004. Fails WP:DICDEF.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:DICDEF as well as WP:NOTMANUAL. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge-any verifiable info to Common Object Request Broker Architecture#Portable interceptors as an ATD. Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input kludge

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

Unsourced since 2005. May fail WP:DICDEF /WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AntiPatterns? It's from that 1998 book, but I don't see any evidence that the term caught on in general use (there are a couple of other patterns books that list it along with other stuff from AntiPatterns). Adam Sampson (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inferential programming

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

Unsourced since 2006. May fail WP:GNG. Even if this can be verified, this might be better covered in computer programming per WP:NOPAGE.4meter4 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from what you mentioned, this also seems to fail WP:QUAL in my eyes. Furthermore, a quick online search seems to yield results that are essentially copies of the Wikipedia article, so this probably fails WP:GNG as you already mentioned. Oakchris1955 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are academic sources discussing the topic, which is arguably a more formal definition for "vibe coding" which is a potential redirect target. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Folks have had 19 years to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Blanco Ferro

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO. No significant coverage found in a WP:BEFORE search from reliable, independent sources. His career seems to have got off to a fine start, and he's had routine coverage from his local newspaper La Región about his company, but the coverage available from RS is just passing mentions. There's also rather a lof of what appears to be paid placement in unreliable sources like deradios.com. Conflict of interest is evident from article creator's repeated uploads of selfies and social media photos as "own work", and laser focus on Blanco Ferro, with a few articles already deleted on obscure awards that he's received: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (Spain), Order of Defence Merit (Cliponie) and Wikinews:Five Galicians Making Significant Contributions to Artificial Intelligence. Wikishovel (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Computing, Software, and Spain. Wikishovel (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I want to thank you for the review and I understand the importance of complying with the relevance policies, especially WP:BIO and WP:BEFORE. It's true that there may still be debate about whether the available coverage reaches the level of "significant" required by Wikipedia, but I think it's important to point out that there are indeed mentions and articles at the regional, national, and even European levels, not just local or passing references. Even so, I accept that some of this coverage may not be as in-depth as the encyclopedia requires, and that's why it may raise reasonable concerns.

I also acknowledge that I have made some mistakes, especially regarding potential conflicts of interest and the inappropriate use of material from social media or sources that don't fully meet the reliability criteria. I appreciate the community pointing this out, because this is precisely what demonstrates why Wikipedia is so valuable: together we can identify errors, correct them, and improve the content to ensure it complies with the policies.

My intention is to continue adhering to the guidelines, providing only verifiable information from reliable sources, and to help ensure that the article—if it is ultimately retained—reflects all existing coverage in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Thank you again for your time and analysis. Goldenking14 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon, this article has the coverage of the European Union (if you are unsure, please search for the EPALE source). Attached are news articles specifically for the user, both locally and nationally. In addition, the websites of the awards and associations themselves mention it publicly. Please reconsider your decision. It has received three national awards in 2025 alone. Goldenking14 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - es:Andrés Blanco Ferro was speedy deleted three times at Spanish Wikipedia, most recently in November as spam. Article creator has also been indefinitely blocked from Wikidata for spamming. Wikishovel (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikishovel, and as promotion for teenager. Geschichte (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8/10

4/3 → Four Thirds system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
8/10 → 8b/10b encoding (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
5/10 → 5th Battalion, 10th Marines (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm requesting for the above redirects to be turned into disambiguation pages, firstly to match other ambiguous number month-day and day-month date notation disambiguation pages like '4/1' and '5/1', and secondly becuase I'm not sure if the respective target articles are considered the primary topics for the current redirect titles, number/number, or are well known out of their respective fields. Note that '5/10 (disambiguation)' already exists as a disambiguation page, but I'm only listing the redirect '5/10' here for the sake of centralising discussions about these redirects. PK2 (talk; contributions) 02:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Nv8200pa talk

Delete I vote for deleting the redirect for 8/10 to 8b/10b, as I don't believe anyone uses it or expects it. Gah4 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5/10 was the subject of a successful requested move (the disambiguation page was moved over it), so this discussion is now partially moot. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - What was done at 5/10 seems to be a good way to handle 8/10 and 4/3. I don't have a good read on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for these titles, but we can make necessary adjustments as a second step. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computing proposed deletions (PROD)

Interoperable Object Reference (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2025)