Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:02, 1 June 2024

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMock

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has one ref from a conference paper by author. Passing mentions in conference papers and low-quality publications. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: created by a long-blocked editor with a history of mass-generation of insignificant stubs. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Based on minimal participation, the article can be recreated, see WP:SOFTDELETE. Malinaccier (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important Party

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

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) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Demoscene#List of demoparties. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUnit

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I checked for sources, but sadly, I can’t find any that deem this subject notable. The cited sources are not reliable, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 19:27, 15 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Sullo, only passing mentions of his role in creating Nikto. There's significant coverage here, but it's a blog and appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I also reviewed the discussion in the no-consensus 2006 and 2007 AfDs, and the "keep" votes were highly unpersuasive, rehearsing the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS already in the article and making non-policy-based arguments for notability (such as a one-word "notable" and citing a "desperate wish" to keep the article). I would encourage other editors to review the sources and prior discussions carefully. If after 18 years(!) sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources cannot be found, this article should not be kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Nikto (vulnerability scanner) probably should visit AFD as well. Neither of the previous AFDs have compelling arguments to keep; this article is just an abandoned resume. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2024 (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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOAtest

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

Fails WP:GNG. All references are self-published. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: Apparently, tutorial books are allowed to establish notability. Can find some magazines [1][2]. --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2024 (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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XUnit

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close note: While there's limited sources available on the subject itself, given that it is closely related to language-specific implementations that are notable like JUnit, etc. this article can be carved into a stub. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2024 (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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABAP Unit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find reliable, secondary, non-tutorial type works about the subject. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: Apparently, tutorial books are allowed to establish notability. --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Long

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Subject is not notable and the article is purely written for promotion (it even reads like a personal resume). Also, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite as the musician in these sources: 1, 2, and this Google search. The present target of the article is hardly covered in any sources I've found except possibly in some books. He has certainly written or been involved in some books which might pass WP:Author. I am conflicted but hedge to delete (for now: he may yet achieve a greater notability but WP:NOTCRYSTAL). — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:20, 5 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Agcaoili

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

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is all about SecureIT and Verisign, nothing about this person, other than mentioned in passing. I don't find any sources for this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 15 June 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party

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

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) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. This is such a niche subject that this doesn't make sense as a standalone. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in computer science

AfDs for this article:

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

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judoscript

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not a free web host for one's computer thing. The vast majority of content has been created by two SPAs, who might be sockpuppets. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please look at the potential sources I added to Talk:Judoscript. ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's already addressed in the AfD.

A PROD on this article failed, but neither of the sources suggested when dePRODing covers the subject in-depth.

Even if these sources can actually establish notability, this article almost entirely contains content that isn't fit for an encyclopedia. Removing that content would essentially amount to blanking the page. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (demoparty)

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Events, and Computing. toweli (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties, as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cribl

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - In a whopping three months of editing (just acknowledging that I'm a newer editor, so take this opinion for what it's worth), I've already seen enough of similar type marketing articles roll through suggested edits. I believe almost all of the coverage listed belongs to the category of trivial WP:ORGTRIV and WP:FORBESCON, and I've seen other editors describe these kinds of pages as "cruft." That said, the weakness in my comment relates to Bloomberg Law article about a lawsuit it lost and won (only had to pay $1). I don't believe that raises it to notable, but it's something and makes me a little hesitant...so weak delete it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertenMerten (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 June 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 03:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Maybe worth adding an entry to the Glossary of computer graphics, not sure about the article. Artem.G (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exocentric environment

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endocentric environment which was nominated with: "No refs on the page for many years. No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion". Shreevatsa (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:15, 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]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 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]

Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [3], [4], [5], [6]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.

~~Weak delete~~ per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:

There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([7], [8], [9] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.

I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.

Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not a community recognized WP:SNG. It's only an essay and doesn't appear to be widely vetted as it doesn't look like it's linked from any guidelines pages. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls NSOFT seems basically like consensus that reviews count towards SIGCOV, which is also found in many other places. The magazine feature isn't a review either. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSOFT is practically meaningless. I believe a sign of essay having been vetted or having some level of consensus is when it is actually linked from guidelines. This isn't the case with NSOFT. It's essentially one user's original research. If you see the authorship, you'll see overwhelming majority is written by one user. Graywalls (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the magazine feature?
What leads you to think that reviews from RSes don't count towards GNG?
You make it sound like the essay is just a user's unreviewed personal opinion with some copyedits, which is not the case. Only 70% of the page was written by that one person, and discussions like Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability. indicate many more eyes and support.

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the Networkworld piece. It's an opinion piece. Since software is a product and WP:NSOFT is not written into WP:SNG, WP:NCORP applies and I don't believe it meets that threshold. I'm maintaining my position that this article should not exist. Graywalls (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being in the opinion column disqualifies it from meeting WP:PRODUCTREV. Reviews are like by definition opinion pieces. WP:SECONDARY even says A book review too can be an opinion.
And again, what about the magazine? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is an opinion? If every piece of news was a statement of fact, news would be boring. A reliable secondary source has a mix of facts and opinion, like this source. Even NYT has a section for opinions. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A professional review by the magazine staff or a column/opinion piece with largely no editorial control are different. A section titled "opinion" is likely the former and shouldn't really count for notability. Software is aproduct. WP:NSOFT is just an essay, so the appropriate guidance on the use of reviews for software is WP:PRODUCTREV Graywalls (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That said, do you agree that the review qualifies for GNG under PRODUCTREV? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not thoroughly evaluated all of them. Applematter looks quite bloggy. The determination of notability anchoring WP:RS can be tough. You could have several foodie friends build a blog and have titles like publisher, editor in chief and such and restaurant and bar articles based on those things have always been a point of contention about all these restaurant articles on Wikipedia. Considering that publication itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article and is not regarded as an authoritative source in other publications, I'm inclined to say its contribution to notability cred is slim. Graywalls (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I don't think Applematters, Reviewasaurus and NewcommReview count or are more than just blogs. However, NetworkWorld is very big, and again, the magazine. Other sources aren't the question here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the sources turned up by others, appears to just meet WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2024 (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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple20

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

is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 5 June 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]

Keep per above. Earwig only brought up 2 reverse-copies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: earwig didn't turn up anything useful, copyright problems should be sorted out at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here. Found sources such as [10], [11]. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:25, 5 June 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewired (demoparty)

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

Not a notable event; no secondary coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Belgium. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exformation

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 27 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher)

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

Almost all sources show that Kokotajlo is notable only because of his controversial resignment from OpenAI. There are no profiles of him or his research, and I can't find any info that he won any major award or led a major team, etc. Wikipedia is not a news site, and I think that the policy says exactly this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Companies, and Computing. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 25 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]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0

AfDs for this article:

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 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]

Weak keep: Looking at the citations of the most cited paper, there is independent sigcov such as [12] and [13]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 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]

I put a wrong link for [1], apologies. I meant to put [14]. [2] is still independent. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] was written by Brunekreef, who also was an author on the original paper proposing the language. It is a primary source. [3] is a very short paragraph in the related work section of a paper that doesn't actually build on top of Alma-0. It is not significant coverage. None of the sources you provided can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, weirdly the article lists him as Brunekree while the paper calls him Brunekeef. Interesting how a single letter can create such a large visual difference.
As long as something isn't trivial mention, it's significant coverage. The RAPID paper presents an entire paragraph of details to compare with RAPID built on top of them. You also still have the other results that cited the ALMA paper. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claimed threshold for significance is arbitrarily low and self-serving. It needs to discuss the subject directly and in detail, and this source does neither. The "entire paragraph" you claim establishes notability discusses the subject in relation to another language (i.e. not directly) and is only a few sentences in a 13-page paper that discusses something else entirely (i.e. not in detail). You've also done nothing to show that the other results can establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses it directly and in detail. In the context of something else means that it's another topic, not that it's not directly. In fact, SIGCOV directly says that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just that it's "a few sentences" does not mean these sentences don't have detail. All normal paragraphs have just a few sentences (in this case, 6). The paragraph details Alma-0's semantics, nature, and statements.

Other sources include [15] which talks about how Alma-0 is "pure dynamic predicate logic". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand that it needs not be the primary subject of the article, but I still don't believe this discusses the subject directly. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Alma-0 is... Alma-0 uses dynamics in this way..." instead of "Apt made a language called Alma-0. Apt then got married." or "Dynamic languages include Alpha-G0, Alma-0, Aleph-0...", ergo it is direct.

I also don't think you can dispute [4]. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add those sources to the article? HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a problem with adding [4] because it has a ton of technical maths language I don't understand. The other one maybe. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought forth two sources that you failed to realize weren't secondary, a source that only meets your arbitrary standard of notability, and a source that you admitted you don't understand. I don't think there's much more of a discussion to be had here. If these are the best sources you could find, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does me not understanding what [4] is saying have any bearing on it counting towards notability or not? We have a ton of technical topics, and they all meet notability. As far as I'm concerned, [3] only fails your arbitrary standard of directness notability. As long as something does not require OR to extract information and addresses the subject directly and in detail, it counts for SIGCOV. Just that a notable thing is niche doesn't mean we should not include it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly explain why a source establishes notability if you don't understand it, and the onus is on you to show that a source can establish notability. Anything else is a massive waste of time for people who nominate articles for deletion. I've also made clear arguments based on the text of the definition of notability that [3] does not provide significant coverage -- there is no arbitrariness here. Again, what is there that's left to discuss? HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your argument that bringing Alma-0 up for acknowledgement of inspiration isn't direct? Have you responded to #c-Aaron_Liu-20240531174600-HyperAccelerated-20240531171800, which shows how it is not just WP:TRIVIAL? Further, how would it be productive to delete this article? Have you seen the reasons the notability guideline exist? How does any of this impede us from having enough content to write articles if we get someone who understands formal computer science? I understand that the sources address the subject directly and in detail, and that is enough.
@JPxG, would you like to comment? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have sourcing guidelines, and this article cannot meet those standards, specifically WP: NSOFT. One paragraph in one paper cannot establish notability and you haven't actually shown that the source that you don't understand establishes notability in any of the eight messages you've written. The sourcing concern still remains, so this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like what HA's asking for here is fairly extreme: the sources can't just talk about the programming language, they have to talk exclusively about the programming language, they have to do so in a way that's accessible to laymen, et cetera. I don't think we need to have whole textbooks written about a programming language for it to pass GNG.

It's worth noting that the original papers specifying the language are published in journals, which is not just some guy's random website -- it's an editorial process where multiple people signed off on this language being worthy of note and constituting a contribution to the field.

Overall, it just doesn't really seem to me like there's a reason to delete the article -- the guidelines are not normally interpreted in such a severe way -- and there's not a compelling reason to go out of our way to interpret them more severely here (there's no BLP issues, for example, and we're not getting paid cash bonuses based on how many AfDs close as delete). jp×g 🗯️ 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources per WP: NSOFT. That could be a paper discussing extensions of Alma-0 by independent researchers or a book chapter about programming languages. One paragraph in one article does not meet that bar, and neither does an article, regardless of its length, that nobody here understands. The authority of these sources isn't under question. If this protracted discussion results in the improvement of the article, I am more than happy to withdraw this AfD. However, I have yet to see evidence of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see an argument for why us being too unintelligent to understand the paper's maths discounts it from notability. NSOFT does not have any mention of that and I don't think anyone can disagree that it's direct and in detail. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [16] summarized it as "how dynamic predicate logic provides an adequate semantics for a non-trivial fragment of Alma-0, and how inference tools for dynamic predicate logic become verification tools for the hybrid programming language". Might be helpful in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 31 May 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to IRIX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4Dwm

AfDs for this article:

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

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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IRIX per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko Gear

AfDs for this article:

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 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.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
"Macworld Australia Staff" (20 October 2010). "Australian iPod, iPad and iPhone accessory maker Gecko Gear announces attendance at CES 2011". Macworld Australia. Archived from the original on 2018-04-17.	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.	– Not really applicable	–
Barker, Garry (8 June 2011). "What's the best case scenario?". Brisbane Times. Also found in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy)		–	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.
Foo, Fran (14 August 2010). "Gecko Gear makes the case for quality iPhone accessories". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2010-11-24.	Pretty much entirely quotes. Probably should be analysed under TRADES tbh.	–	– At least it's actually vaguely about the subject?
Barker, Gary (29 January 2007). "Lifestyle accessories turn the world into iPod's oyster". The Age.	–	–	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, Liz ^{Read! 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]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. If technically meets SIGCOV but is nowhere near supporting notability. That's what I mean by barely partially. If we had a source that had two, longer paragraphs about the company itself that can't count as one as its own, I think we can combine it with a similar (but different, ofc) source to count as 1 source unit for notability, while my minimum is 2 source units. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to the criteria for establishing notability than SIGCOV but to answer your thought on whether you can combine sources to count a 1 source unit, at least for companies/organizations, no we cannot. I've pointed you to WP:SIRS above which clarifies that each individual source must meet all the criteria. Hope that helps, sorry if I'm only confusing matters further for you. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 1 June 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]

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.

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 Procedural Close‎. Nom is a sock. If someone wants to re-nom sooner than the typical N/C, feel free. Star Mississippi 01:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XML appliance

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Shellwood: Please read WP:BEFORE. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [17], [18], [19]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 28 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]

@Kvng: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, sorry. Meant to ping @GoodHue291: ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find a half page article in Networked World. Beyond that I find mentions, particularly in IBM publications, as they appear to have purchased the technology and incorporated it into their software. Those publications, however, do not explain what it is or how it works (the proverbial "black box"), only that it provides accelerated processing of XML data. Lamona (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a weird one. XML was a... bit of a fad back in the day, so there are almost certainly a large volume of sources, complicated by the fact that they would be hard to search, even the online indexed ones, and I would expect a substantial portion to not necessarily be indexed (for example, I don't think Morrison, Scott (2007). "XML appliances simplify SOA". Communications News. Vol. 44, no. 4. Nelson Publishing. p. 24. is). We do have books from the vendors, of course (I think Hines, Bill; Rasmussen, John; Ryan, Jaime; Kapadia, Simon; Brennan, Jim (2008). Hines, Bill (ed.). IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA appliance handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press Pearson plc. pp. 6–13. ISBN 978-0-13-714819-6. might be slightly better than the other IBM book at treating the subject more generally) but again, not all of them would be indexed. This Australian Department of Defence report has some coverage, but might be more useful for a list than a prose article: Indrakanti, Sarath (October 2012). Service Oriented Architecture Security Risks and their Mitigation (PDF) (Report). DSTO.. I'd rather have a bit more time before we make a conclusion one way or another. (Also, I found a first-party url to the Network World article above, which might be slightly less annoying than google books: Gaitonde, Sunil (8 December 2003). "XML appliances speed Web services". Network World. Vol. 20, no. 49. IDG Network World. p. 41. ISSN 0887-7661.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (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.

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. Editors can choose to create a redirect if they wish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Reference Library

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's only one redirect !vote, there is a clear consensus to eliminate the article but not quite enough discussion for a sure delete over redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague term, so a redirect may not be helpful as per nom. Since little in the way of sourcing could be found, I don't see any reason to keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to The Open Source Definition. Not 100% sure I got this one right but if I didn't, I'm sure someone will tell me or take this to DRV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines

AfDs for this article:

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

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[20][21]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 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: [22], [23], [24]. ~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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are 3 different target articles being proposed here. To carry out this option as a closure, we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The only candidates I see are the OSD and Buidhe's draft of it. That says, @Buidhe would you kindly link us to your draft? I can't find it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was incorporated as the main space article on 18 May. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe I'm talking about the draft for the OSD, not the draft of the Open Definition, unless you would see it fit to merge to the latter article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's located at The Open Source Definition, see the diff from May 18 (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. So there's only one sane target article.
@HyperAccelerated I assume you also agree to merging to OSD? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSD is fine with me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (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.

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. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurrealDB

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
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 Vili talk 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 Vili talk 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 [25] 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.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material	– Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no	Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV	Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	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.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions	Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Literally a press release		Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		Leaning no
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs.	Short circuit	Blogs aren't considered RS	At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement	Same as above
Citations to their own website
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Interview with no secondary content
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	probably not, but not assessed	No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19. (Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)		Dubious	... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	This is a press release
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17.		...
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19.	Sponsored	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. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9.		At least this one is an RS
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken).	– Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here	Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick	– Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here	3.2 is fine	—
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?".		Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6.			Passing mention

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]

I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 Could you please add https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb to your assessment, I will be adding this to the article Mr Vili talk 04:34, 30 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?

Sources like [26] [27] Mr Vili talk 04:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vili talk 00:45, 1 June 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) UPE sock, unknown master, blocked by Ponyo Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is leaning on the side of deletion, I would prefer this page to be Draftified, as I expect this article to eventually become notable after the SurrealDB commercial launch, which should generate some more reliable and significant coverage Mr Vili talk 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Alpha3031's assessment of the sources identified for this subject. That we're even considering this, an "official government organization of the Government of Lumina" ([28]), as a reliable source is a rather damning sign of non-notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~lol what a joke Freedun (yippity yap) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete, thanks to Alpha's source table and unconvincing arguments to keep. Toadspike [Talk] 09:16, 8 June 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Datadog#Acquisitions where it is mentioned Star Mississippi 01:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDIV

(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]

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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Datadog as it was acquired by them. Currently the article lacks proper citations.Hkkingg (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't mentioned in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There now seems to be a mention of HDIV at § Acquisitions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS

(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]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices , A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories , Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level , DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage , TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion , and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! 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, Toadette^Edit! 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 3 June 2024 (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.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Computing==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EasyMock}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Important Party}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DUnit}}