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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing.
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:
Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons why this article should be deleted. The first reason is that it fails WP: N. A PROD on this article failed, but neither of the sources suggested when dePRODing covers the subject in-depth. The second reason is that this article is almost entirely (>80%) written by a user named JianboHuang, a single-purpose editor whose name closely matches that of the creator of the language. While AfD is not a venue to determine whether a COI has occurred, the edits made by this user cover the subject in excessive detail and in a tone that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. At this point, I think WP: STARTOVER applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or potentially redirect to virtual reality with a topic merge. The majority of scholarly articles that use this terminology set are not independent of its creators (Ivica Bukvic and Disha Sardana, inter alia), but there's a little bit out there that might be usable. I don't think it stands alone as much more than a dictionary definition, but it might warrant a brief mention in the parent topic and, thus, a redirect. Maybe. Lubal (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni usertalk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this is a copy/paste or copyvio. I created this page from multiple sources and the copyvio report shows that it is unlikely to be a copyright violation. Additionally, there is more information about this vulnerability now than when the page was first created, so I believe that it is still notable and the article can be expanded. —Ost (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A gestalt article on three different articles that define this word differently. No substantial independent coverage for any definition. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was one of a number of openAI folks to leave the company, but I don't find any sources that are substantially about him. He gets name-checked or briefly cited, that's all. He has authored some articles but they aren't cited to a degree to meet NACADMIC or NAUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This fails WP: N. This page has a pretty unfortunate history with AfDs, but the issue of sourcing still remains. The papers that discuss the language in depth are primary, and its citations are brief mentions of the language itself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what has changed from the last three (!) AfDs, and the sources (of which there are nine) look okay to me. jp×g🗯️ 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the AfD rationale, which points out that the sources are either primary or not in-depth? The previous AfDs discussed citation counts and number of hits on Google, which are not valid rationales for keeping an article. Similarly, the number of sources an article has doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "independent sigcov" was authored by the same people who wrote the "most cited paper" that you're referring to. Those sources are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this fails WP: N. There was a previous nomination in 2021 that failed on the basis that there are mentions of the software in Google Books and Google Scholar. However, these sources are either not independent (published by Silicon Graphics) or are not in-depth (passing mentions in a book chapter or a paper). HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IRIX: no independent notability. Owen×☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?
–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170 TWL
–
–
There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)
–
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put two additional arguments to you. First, the topic of this article is the *company* but the Barker article is about the Ipad2 cover and based entirely on an interview with the founder. Second, references don't count "partially" - we don't aggregate 10 (or whatever number you choose) sources that fail NCORP and determine that there's "enough" therefore to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:SIRS which governs how to evaluate each source and says each individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that the SIGCOV part is extremely shaky, so it counts partially. If it fails IND, then it's just a fail. Barker has a paragraph of individual analysis, but that is indeed just a single, tiny paragraph that happens to not be a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but just FYI, that's not how to apply the criteria. It is a binary yes/no pass/fail decision. There's no such thing as counting "partially". A "single tiny paragraph" from one reference fails and does not count towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't in the article; you don't know if they're reliable. I'd recheck the sources because the 2nd one in your message links to a 200+ PDF document that doesn't directly explain what XML appliance is about. GoodHue291 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Term is too generic to help find things related to this particular service. Obsolete, so we won't find much coverage of it these days. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SilverPlatter where it is mentioned as WP:ATD. No specific name clashes have been identified and these can be handled at WP:RFD if identified in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.
The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.
Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[6][7]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [8], [9], [10]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vilitalk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.
However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vilitalk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.
Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [11] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail
First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN978-0-13-739262-9.
I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?
I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBimtalk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered.JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
This is a press release. Two ways to tell. Well, three if we count the fact that it's obviously a press release from the content.
.svg){kind=small}
