Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

HDIV

HDIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Websites. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy pings for Jay, Shhhnotsoloud, and Tavix, who participated in the previous discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PackCC

PackCC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

page does not seem to meet the nobility criteria and most content is copied from the GitHub page; the author of the page is also the creator of the software Howrued (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS

LogFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kolmogorov–Arnold Network

Kolmogorov–Arnold Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This wikipage is about a preprint that came out a week ago. It's generated some hype on webforums, but that's an extremely unreliable barometer of notability. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the appropriate extent to include this as wiki material is limited to the following two sentences on Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem, as presently:

In the field of machine learning, there have been various attempts to use neural networks modeled on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation. In these works, the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem plays a role analogous to that of the universal approximation theorem in the study of multilayer perceptrons.

It doesn't seem to be the case that any particular attempt is very notable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although less important than the issue of whether notability is established in reliable sources, I'd like to highlight that a main part of the preprint's self-reported notability is reflected in the wiki-statement "KANs have been shown to perform well on problems from knot theory and physics (such as Anderson localization)." This statement is extremely dubious. I'd encourage any mathematician to look at Table 5 on page 24 of the preprint or Table 6 on page 28. The KAN-discovered formulas are, in effect, nothing but classical regression with complicated functions. It has been possible to discover similarly complicated formulas for well over a century, and they aren't of any self-apparent interest whatsoever. The stark difference with the "Theory" or "Human"-discovered formulas should be apparent to even non-mathematicians.

The other examples in the paper are of (extremely) small toy data sets, nowhere close the scale at which machine learning is uniquely useful. As always, possibly papers in the future will develop this topic further, but at present it isn't remotely clear that this preprint is a significant development. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly situates the KAN as a recent addition to the long history of attempting to apply KART in a machine learning context. Given the standing of the researchers involved (e.g. Ziming Liu, Jim Halverson, Max Tegmark), this is more than just a random arXiv preprint and I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this information until it gets formally published somewhere in a year or two, no matter whether we personally find the paper's content convincing or important. calr (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's absurd to suggest that these are particularly noteworthy researchers. For example, just the five most recent papers on machine learning on arxiv (the first 5 of the 95 uploaded yesterday) are authored by Mehryar Mohri, Yu-Pin Hsu, Pawel Herman, Vaneet Aggarwal, and Lalitha Sankar. If you judge by author notability and if Ziming Liu and Jim Halveson meet your standard, then it seems that nearly every new preprint on machine learning is something more than just a random arxiv preprint.

It's true that Max Tegmark is somewhat famous for non-research work like Our Mathematical Universe and Life 3.0 and for various public advocacy. (At least in his former life as a physicist, he was often criticized for unscientific babble, see e.g. the criticism section in Our Mathematical Universe.)

And even if the authors were top machine learning researchers, that wouldn't make any random new paper of theirs significant. Likewise it also won't be enough for this preprint to just be formally published. It has to be recognized as significant by reliable sources. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If we allow this article then we'll also have to allow many other articles" isn't really an argument for non-notability. calr (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre description of (that part of) what I'm saying, which is that the word "notable" loses all meaning if just about every preprint is notable. I am suggesting that your usage of the word is not even cogent.

Here's equally (or much more) notable authors from preprints #5-10 uploaded yesterday: Hao Li, Andreas Krause, Djamila Aouada, Dan Klein, Stefano Savazzi. So all ten of the most recent preprints on machine learning uploaded to arxiv are clearly 'more than just a random arXiv preprint' by your standard. Should I go through all 95 uploaded yesterday? Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't raised anything for me to cogently respond to. You argument seems to be 1) you've personally reviewed the paper and didn't find it notable, 2) the article's title comes from a preprint, and some preprints aren't notable, so the concept isn't notable either (and even when it does appear in a journal, that still doesn't count unless some other source also says so), 3) vague insinuations about "hype on webforums". None of those are relevant to Wikipedia's definition of notability. calr (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC) (Clarified calr (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) )[reply]

"the article's title comes from a preprint"

This framing seems disingenuous; everything except for five sentences in the History section comes from this new preprint. Those sentences belong naturally in the page Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem. Without much loss, they are even well represented by the sentence presently there, with two of the references included: "In the field of machine learning, there have been various attempts to use neural networks modeled on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation." Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A preprint from last month is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. Bulking up a page about a new proposal with "background" references that don't specifically discuss the new proposal is the wrong way to go about writing anything encyclopedic. Adopting the terminology proposed by an unreliable source, and taking that choice of terminology as so definitive that it establishes the article's title, violates NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hessburg

Mark Hessburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced article and subject does not seem notable, either for his music career or for his app designs. Can't find any significant coverage online and seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Computing, and Germany. InDimensional (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Conducted a BEFORE search and didn't find much we could use. Took a look at the previous AFD held in 2006, and the result was keep. All I'd say is Wikipedia was so much different back then. IMO those votes would not constitute an outright keep consensus today. X (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really a wiki editor, so please bear with me if I'm drawing the wrong conclusions here. I came across this deletion discussion by accident after I noticed that the link to Chassalla is not active in the article about the label Eisenberg https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/de/Eisenberg_(music label) because the Chassalla article was deleted from Wikipedia. I'm from the same region as this band and I'm involved in the local gothic scene, so I know a lot about them.

• First of all, you have to understand that Mark Hessburg was mainly musically active until the mid-90s and, as you quickly find out if you do a little googling, he later concentrated on film sound and game development after moving to Berlin.

  There are inevitably no online articles from the period in which he was active as a musician, not even their record company SPV had an online presence at that time, as you can find out via the Internet Archive. As far as I know, there were only tours in the time before the last album. So there was no reason why there should have been any media articles about it in the 21st century.

  As has already been mentioned here, Wikipedia was a completely different place at the time the article was posted than it is today. This also explains the lack of sources in the article.

  He is also listed in the German National Library under the name Chassalla with a reference to the real name Mark Hessburg: https://d-nb.info/gnd/134828038

  So I would suggest that the article on Mark Hessburg should be merged with the content of the deleted article on Chassalla. According to the guideline “Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.” - In this case, perhaps only the other way around, as Mark Hessburg's creative field of activity obviously extends far beyond just music. However, musical creation alone is sufficient according to several points mentioned in the notability criteria https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

  I cannot judge this for his other fields of activity, but there is also a lot to be found online.

  But now to sources regarding notability:

  Point 1 definitely applies:

  Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

  HNA - Hessisch Niedersächsische Allgemeine 29. October 1996 Page 10 – Review of the Album "Phoenix out of the ashes" https://www.meinehna.de/abo/content/archiv (paid)

  Online you can also find this review as PDF, from the magazine EB/METRONOM No. 42 - March/April 1993 page 57: http://subkultur-ost.de/EB-Metronom%2042-93%20(Koeln)%20Fanzine%20%60931.pdf

  I also remember that there were several reviews in magazines, among others in the most important medium of the scene “Zillo”, but I only have one review in the probably second most important magazine “Orkus Musik Magazin” September 1996 page 44 with the review of the album “Phoenix out of the ashes”.

  Considering that the last album came out 28 years ago and the genre is a subculture that is nowhere near as popular and important today as it was in the early 1990s, I find it amazing that you can still find something internationally, even if only on some webzines or online marketplaces where the used CDs are sold, but it clearly shows that the project had definitely achieved a relevant, international level of awareness at the time. e.g. here:

  https://www.darkside.ru/album/12605/

  https://www.hmv.co.jp/artist_Chassalla_000000000366218/item_Phoenix-Out-Of-The-Ashes_2557117

  https://www.stereoid.cz/chassalla-phoenix-out-of-the-ashes-cd/

  https://winyle.com.pl/kasety/5020082-chassalla-phoenix-out-of-the-ashes.html

  You also find used CDs of him worldwide on eBay.

  Point 5 also seems to apply:

  Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

  The debut album is available in the German National Library. The entry shows that the CD was released on the Apollyon Rekordings label, a sub-label of Apollyon (90 records released) and was distributed via EFA Medien (A huge company with more than 10,000 records released)

  From this link https://d-nb.info/353035785 and the archived Chassalla website from 1999 (under “History”) https://web.archive.org/web/19991007024618/http://www.hessburg.de/chassalla/index.html it is also clear that the project is not a band in the classic sense, but rather a solo project in which different musicians have probably worked together time and again, as on the second album.

  https://www.discogs.com/de/label/43832-Apollyon-Rekordings?page=1

  https://www.discogs.com/de/label/25914-Apollyon?page=1

  https://www.discogs.com/de/label/2444-EFA?page=1

  Mark Hessburg's second album was released by Oblivion, a sub-label (250 titles released) of SPV GmbH (one of the largest independent record labels in the world, with more than 13,000 albums released). It was released by Eisenberg / Warner-Chappell Music and produced by Eisenberg's owner Carlos Perón, a founding member of the famous band Yello. https://subculturerecords.bandcamp.com/album/phoenix-out-of-the-ashes-remastered

  https://www.discogs.com/de/label/96109-SPV-GmbH?page=1

  In addition, material by Mark Hessburg has been released on various compilations by well-known labels such as ZYX or the compilation label “Double Power” by Sony Music, together with world-famous artists such as Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre, Alan Parsons, Klaus Schulze, Ofra Haza.

  https://www.discogs.com/de/artist/142930-Chassalla?superFilter=Appearances

  https://www.allmusic.com/album/mystic-spirits-vol-8-mw0000550889

  https://www.allmusic.com/album/best-of-beyond-the-skies-mw0000403718

  Point 6 also seems to apply:

  Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

  He also wrote a popular track for the 1994 album Intimacy by the Canadian wave/synthy pop band Psyche and performed with them at several concerts. The band was extremely successful in the scene, especially in the late 80s and early 90s, and as Anne Clark's support band they also became a name to audiences outside the scene.

  http://www.psyche-hq.de/history.html

  https://www.allmusic.com/album/legacy-mw0000403961

  Johannes Häusler, who was involved in the Chassalla project, was also a member of Psyche. Another musician, Christian Rossbach, was later a member of Madre del Vizio. A well-known italo gothic rock band https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/de/Madre_del_Vizio

  Point 7 possibly applies:

  Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

  In the early 90s, Chassalla was one of the few music projects from this scene in the greater Kassel area and was mentioned several times in the local media such as HNA and Infotip. Of course, this only exists on paper in old publications and not online.

  As for the rest of his career:

  Almost all the sound design projects listed here are well-known in Germany and from the major TV channels. https://www.crew-united.com/de/Mark-Hessburg_285998.html on IMDB you can also find international titles such as Paris Hilton's Simple Life or Om Shanti Om with Shah Rukh Khan.

  So the claim to work as a sound designer is also proven.

  If you make the effort, you will also find out that he ran the Green-Hill Studio in Kassel https://green-hill.de with the later producer of the famous German rapper Prinz Pi. You have to combine these three sources

  https://www.hna.de/kultur/hiphop-gemacht-2962664.html

  https://www.discogs.com/de/release/164059-RAS-Rhythmic-Altered-State

  https://www.allmusic.com/album/rhythmic-altered-state-mw0000221647#credits

  You can also find the connection to the Algerian world musician Hamid Baroudi from Dissidenten via this link. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mark-hessburg-mn0002004719#credits

  A list of references on its website also includes several successful mobile game titles, such as Atlantic Fleet and Sky Gamblers https://www.hessburg.com/references.html

  Press mentions as a game developer, which you can find quite quickly

  BZ (Axel Springer Verlag) https://www.bz-berlin.de/archiv-artikel/news-50

  https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/2011/02/14/preview-wolves-of-the-atlantic-for-iphone-submarine-sim/

  https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-flare-path-topical-titbits#more-355119

  https://deutscher-marinebund.de/service/u-995-kompass-app/

  https://web.archive.org/web/20140609061555/https://www.pockettactics.com/news/ios-news/long-way-tipperary-wolves-atlantic-ambitious-u-boat-sim-youve-ever-seen/

  https://www.148apps.com/news/wota-uboat-compass-wets-appetite-wota-wolves-atlantic/

  https://de.paperblog.com/wota-wolves-of-the-atlantic-weltkriegs-u-boot-simulation-fur-ios-und-desktop-pc-fakten-und-features-ins-deutsche-ubersetzt-860990/

  Incidentally, the rough content of the deleted Chassalla article can still be found online in a similar version, which would be a good start for expanding the article.: https://www.last.fm/music/Chassalla/+wiki 2003:C4:C70B:274E:19BA:543C:1764:8CF6 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @2003:C4:C70B:274E:19BA:543C:1764:8CF6 Thank you for your participation in this discussion. For the record, I'll stand by my previous opinion. X (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Promo BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, listings, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. NACTOR points above boil down to ILIKEIT, not SIGCOV from independent reliable sources. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Anyone care to take on a rebuttal of the many points issued by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XPANCEO

XPANCEO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

1. Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
2. Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
3. Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
4. Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
5. Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
6. Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
7. Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
8. Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
9. Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. JavaHurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. JavaHurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that works too, but it's a bit moot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

Comparison of BitTorrent clients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] and [4] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [5], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [6], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network naming scheme

Computer network naming scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [7]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [8]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per [9] and [10], or at the very least merge to Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also Computer name, another clearly notable topic, redirects to this article. Coverage definitely could be improved in this area but deleting this is an unproductive WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [11], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment So I think we have a consensus on what the thing is that people in the discussion are thinking of, but there's still the problem that the name we have here is patently something someone made up one day. GBook hits are zero; JSTOR hits are zero; GHits, as I said above, are very few and seem likely to be the product of page scraping. Is there any reason not to delete a term that nobody is actually using? Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the name is the only problem, it would be preferable to rename instead of deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Computer network isn't a bad idea, but I think merging into Hostname would be better. The idea being discussed in this (very short) page is how to come up with names for devices on a network, and Hostname already has some discussion of what kinds of names people use. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a better merge target suggestion than Directory service suggested by Sirfurboy above. ~Kvng (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. Hostname isn't a bad suggestion, and we could redirect there, and, indeed, if anyone wanted to merge content to there that makes sense for what the page currently contains, but I think Directory service is the better location for the redirect because the title has scheme in it, and that scheme is specifically a scheme of naming applied to computer networks. That, to me, is clearly "naming and directory services", a textbook subject that would refer to LDAP, DNS, X.500 etc. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity

Airbiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[1][2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]