Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

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:

  1. 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. 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.
  3. Please indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary.

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.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


Contents

[edit] Computing

[edit] Hypercollaboration

Hypercollaboration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Hypercollaboration" – news · books · scholar · free images)
(Find sources: "Hyper-collaboration" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Deprodded 11 months ago without comment. I've found no sources that even use this term, only Wikipedia mirrors. The refs don't support the term at all. WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Possible Keep I did see quite a few uses of the expression using a Google books search. Sometimes it's spelled Hyper-collaboration. I'm not sure if it really is a distinct thing that should have an article, or if it's just a form of Collaboration. BigJim707 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Article strikes me as a spoof, or if not a spoof as a stream of pseudomanagement HyperWonk. (HyperWonk is at least as well recognized a term as HyperCollaboration, but doesn't and shouldn't have a WP article. It refers to various forms of HyperPromotion and HyperIteration by HyperManagement.) Has no pertinent RS. References are padding. One of several additional clues of the article's spurious nature is the egregiously erroneous claim that Hypercolloboration is a synonym for Multitasking. Oh, and the... "self cloning...." and so forth. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to virtual collaboration. The Google Books references are few in number and only refer to hyper-collaboration in passing - not enough to satisfy WP:NEO. Virtual collaboration, while in dire need of sourcing itself, appears to be both largely synonymous with hyper-collaboration and a legitimate article topic. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, or perhaps redirect Seems a clear NEOlogism. Could perhaps redirect to Collaborative software (the widely used term Groupware redirects there already) or Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) which is well established (though that article needs a lot of tidying also). The term 'Distributed Project Teams' (or just 'Distributed projects') is also in wide use, though not yet the subject of its own WP article ;-} it appears. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with Online collaboration. -- User:Ed Poor 19:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mapping of Unicode graphic characters

Mapping of Unicode graphic characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Mapping of Unicode graphic characters" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Delete. This article does a sort of list of character topics, with no sense of structure or completeness at all, let alone giving a good overview. Then, in Unicode, there is no concept of 'graphic character' at all (as I noted on the Talkpage earlier here). Unicode uses a lot of concepts related to 'characters', like say 'Format char'. 'Control char', even 'Code', but never ever 'graphic character'. Content of this (old) page is covered elsewhere. DePiep (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Notified creator [1]. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I still not have the faintest idea what step 3 is about, I tried it before and it did not invite me into anything (I thought I was lost) [2]. Intrerestingly, I do one or two TfDs a month, but AfD surprises me.
And to be clear: this is a botted response? Why should I read? A bot that does not know what it is talking about should be shut off. I am really pissed of that this message is brought to me, while the message is nonsense from A to ZX. And I will not be so 'helpful' (to a bot?) that I will go over to edxplain what the bot does. -DePiep (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let me give you an explanation. WP:AFDHOWTO gives as Step 3 various things that you did not do. It is important that you do them. It doesn't understand that you understand why--it will not invite you--you just need to do them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Porter

Martin Porter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Martin Porter" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Completing nomination for IP editor User talk:98.28.12.216. On the merits, I have no opinion at this time - though note that the article has been edited since the IP submitted their rationale on their talk page.

The detailed rationale reads thus: "Notability is not established whatsoever, only verifiability. Anyone can invent things and win awards. It comes down to third-party significant coverage to determine if this article stays." UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I just added to his page the following sentence: "His 1980 paper "An algorithm for suffix stripping", proposing the stemming algorithm, has been cited over 5000 times according to Google Scholar." I don't know anything about stemming algorithms... but he seems important in his field... Maybe there is a need to look for more media coverage about him... Tradedia (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 for his multiple highly cited papers (six pubs with over 100 cites each in Google scholar, not counting the repeated entries for his 5000+-citation work) and for plenty of third-party coverage of his stemmer. Also a likely pass of #C2 for the Strix award. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to his landmark Stemming paper, Martin is a well known and highly respected professional in information retrieval being the first to deliver a commercial search engine based on the Probabilistic model - Muscat. Moderngirllive (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per David Eppstein's rationale. Qwertyus (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong keep on overwhelming evidence above. Nominating admin could note that there is no obligation to give proforma help to such clearly inadequate AfD nominations as this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC).

[edit] GDG – WHID 65040-032

GDG – WHID 65040-032 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "GDG – WHID 65040-032" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found no notability. If it is decided to merge this somewhere, this should not be a redirect because I can't imagine anyone typing this in the search box. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Unicode character assignments

Summary of Unicode character assignments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Summary of Unicode character assignments" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article is way too detailed and complicated to be helpful for the general reader (or even Unicode experts), and this makes it extremely hard to maintain. I and other editors have just finished updating Unicode-related pages for Unicode version 6.1 that was released this week, but no-one has updated the Unicode content of this page since Unicode version 5.0 (released July 2006, and now three versions out of date) as it is so much trouble to recalculate all the figures and character ranges. Furthermore, the organization of Unicode blocks into different tables is idiosyncratic and seems to reflect a single editor's idea of how best to categorise Unicode blocks rather than reflect any categorization of blocks in the Unicode Standard. The breakdown of table rows into "Unalloc'd", "Alloc'd", "Excl", "Incl", "Reservd", "Provd", "Compat", "Core" is again idiosyncratic and borders on original research. A far clearer and readable overview of Unicode character allocation is already provided in the Unicode block article, and so there is no need for Summary of Unicode character assignments. BabelStone (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article looks informative to me. The fact that it is imperfect is no reason to delete it. Improvements are needed, but that is the case with 99% (or actually 100%) of all articles on Wikipedia.--Mlewan (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
My improvement to it would be to delete the unnecessary columns, and rearrange in the order given in the Unicode Standard, the end result of which would be rather similar to the Unicode block article. If there did not already exist a better replacement for this article I would agree that it is better to improve than delete, but there is already a better, more informative article which is based on reliable sources (did I forget to mention that Summary of Unicode character assignments is unsourced?). BabelStone (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"Unsourced" is no reason for deletion. If something is wrong and unsourced it should obviously be deleted, but if we were to remove every fact in Wikipedia that did not have a carefully verified reliable source, then the whole project would shrink to absolute uselessness.
The article Unicode block is something I had to look at twice, before I even realised that one can expand the section to get any useful info at all, so there is a usability problem there. Nevertheless, it is true that the two articles heavily overlap, so I change my "vote" to Merge and improve Unicode block. --Mlewan (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and re-direct page title to the section on allocation in the Unicode block article, per BabelStone. -- Evertype·✆ 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs to be sourced out, but that's an editing issue. Useful albeit esoteric piece, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - the last thing we need is an out-of-date WP:CFORK of something that already exists (Unicode block). -- 202.124.73.139 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Unicode block Per nom. —Ruud 10:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current version (Unicode 5.0) was also the first version in the article, so it has never been updated. The tables can only be maintained automated (but there is no bot for this), which cuts me out of improvements. This situation is making the "to be edited for improvements is no deletion argument" unconvincing: here it is. Some column definitions are OR (e.g. Excl/Incl). And: what does the information really add to the encyclopedia? Apart from some legend entries, the page does not give much or easy insight nor oversight of the allocation issues. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notified creator [3]. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. I defer to the experienced editors' assessment that this is redundant and outdated. Do not redirect; not a likely search term.  Sandstein  08:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Michael T Cammarata

Michael T Cammarata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Michael T Cammarata" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No references supplied in an article about a living person. No sources supplied to indicate notability. A quick Google search did not reveal any reliable source discussing the subject. SQGibbon (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've added a reference for the first section of the article, and I've added two external links. Cammarata was only 13 years old when he first emerged as one of the early innovators in monetizing the Internet Advertising marketplace. The article could use some cleanup work, especially with certain content that needs further verified. I will assist further as best as I can should the article survive this afd. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The two external links you supplied appear to be press releases (the one from Red Orbit pretty clearly so and the other one seems likely) which do not go toward establishing notability. The reference you supplied does not appear to be a reliable source (from what I can tell it collects stuff from all over the Internet in order to help members learn English) and is a copy of the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article (complete with the footnote superscript rendered as "[1]" instead of a superscript). I've removed the reference for now. SQGibbon (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Datamatics Global Services

Datamatics Global Services (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Datamatics Global Services" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Advertisement for another software services and consulting company. Current text is unambiguous advertising:

  • The company provides business solutions to a wide range of industry verticals and the service offerings span across IT consulting, business process transformation, off-the-shelf technology solutions and customized software services.It also provides services to embedded engineering and telecommunications, solutions for ticketing, toll and parking applications.

References are to press releases about executive hires, routine contract announcements, and stock market data pages. Being the first company in the world to guarantee 99.997% accuracy level in Data Capture does not seem to be the sort of achievement that should be remembered for all time in an encyclopedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we work towards improving than deleting? KuwarOnline Talk 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? It's just another IT outsourcing business. Why should such a thing be covered in an encyclopedia? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is nothing notable here, and certainly not neutral (the term 'solutions' appears three times in the first four paragraphs. Even if this is notable, it will require a fundamental rewrite to achieve the required neutrality. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks to me like it just about passes the GNG and, specifically, WP:CORP. I was hitherto unaware that our policies set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether - could somebody point out the specific policy? bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which policy requires that a business "makes history in its field"? I searched through Wikipedia:Notability and didn't find a single mention of "history". It's mentioned in your essay, of course, but that's not a policy no matter how often you link to WP:B2B at AfD. It would also help if you could clarify how we set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether, as I can't find a policy basis for that either. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep It meets the relevant guideline. "Makes history in its field" is more like the equivalent of famous, and is not required for notability--but in fact the article claims it has reached the highest rate of accuracy ever in its field--it would be good to have a 3rd party source for that. The only special problem with outsourcing companies is that it's usually harder to find references than businesses that directly serve consumers. . When there are, this makes all the more reason to keep it. Smerdis' argument amounts to IDONTTHINKITBELONGSHERE, as a pure personal opinion, unsupported by policy and consequently irrelevant to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC) .
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Appears to just barely meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=476508127"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export