Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 力百 (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 18 December 2021 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HiSoft Systems.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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:
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 keep. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiSoft Systems

HiSoft Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent coverage. Was a business from 1980 to 2001, now a consulting brand for one of the founders. Multiple other software businesses of this name make searches difficult. Based on the article, Maxon Computer GmbH could be a redirect target, but that article doesn't (and needn't) mention this company. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Thank you. There are a great number of search results to go through, and I personally can't comb through all of them to find ones that pass WP:SIGCOV for the company. Based on the search results you provided, I share Pavlor's concern that the products may be more notable than the company itself. (Advertisements do not warrant product notability, and product reviews must meet WP:PRODUCTREV). If multiple reliable independent sources about the company itself do not exist, the products' notability is not enough to keep the company's page in existence. If anyone has time to pinpoint in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources, please share what you find. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from this company profile (mentioned above) https://archive.org/details/AmigaComputingIssue094XMas95/page/n31/mode/1up I can find plenty of product reviews in eg British magazines https://archive.org/details/cuamiga-magazine-072/page/n64/mode/1up US magazines https://archive.org/details/Antics_AMIGA_Plus_Volume_1_Number_1_1989-05_Antic_Publishing_US/page/n18/mode/1up French magazines https://archive.org/details/st-magazine-080/page/n33/mode/1up It's difficult tracking down news items using archive.org's search, but here's one https://archive.org/details/Atari_ST_User_Issue_088_1993-06_Europress_GB/page/n6/mode/1up where Hisoft are referred to as a "Top Developer" and the one from the British Newspaper Archive I mentioned above which refers to Hisoft as "one of the most respected software houses in the home computer field" in the Liverpool Echo on 9th November 1985 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000271/19851109/050/0006 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Piecesofuk. Unfortunately, product reviews are irrelevant in the discussion to keep/delete this company page. The BNA does not permit open access without creating an account, and brief mentions of the company are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. The purpose of meeting WP:SIGCOV is to allow Wikipedians to write a whole article about a subject, per WP:WHYN, and if we cannot prove there is in-depth coverage about the company (not the software) to do so, the Wikipedia article about the company has to be deleted. My vote is Delete unless WP:SIGCOV can be proven for the company alone, not its products. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there appears to be difficulty sourcing much on-line info from the 1980s, but we should consider British Newspaper Archive per Piecesofuk's research. There are thousands of references in Archive.org and beyond, although it is a struggle to identify stuff that passes WP:SIRS from there. HiSoft adverts typically contain blurb about the company, and this tends to crowd out hits on more analytical pieces. The journalistic style of the time would typically not dwell on the organisations much, despite the significance of the products, so analytical pieces would be few. These issues mean that evidence may be difficult to compile. Chumpih t 04:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, the profile contained in the Amiga Computing magazine coupled with the mentions of the importance of this company's products in their own specialist fields and the fact that the age of this company means we must take WP:NEXIST into account pushes the topic company over the line. HighKing++ 11:37, 5 January 2022 (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. Sandstein 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Java and C++

Comparison of Java and C++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this article's been around for a while, I don't see it as encyclopedic. None of the cited sources explicitly contrast the two languages, so it's mostly original research to compare them beyond face value. In that respect, any meaningful comparison beyond a table would just be a special case of "pros/cons of garbage collection, native code vs bytecode..." which can be better dealt with at each feature's respective article. More generally, comparing two vastly different languages like this isn't Wikipedia's job. "Comparison of C and C++" would arguably make sense, for example, because they are closely related and the difference between them is important (some valid C is not C++, etc), but that's not the case here. Even if Java and C++ are both old, popular and object oriented, that's not a particularly compelling reason to dedicate an article to comparing them. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robert C. Martin (January 1997). "Java vs. C++: A Critical Comparison" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 May 2008. Retrieved 15 December 2007.
  2. ^ Hundt, Robert (2011-04-27). "Loop Recognition in C++/Java/Go/Scala" (PDF). Stanford, California: Scala Days 2011. Retrieved 2012-11-17. Java shows a large GC component, but a good code performance. [...] We find that in regards to performance, C++ wins out by a large margin. [...] The Java version was probably the simplest to implement, but the hardest to analyze for performance. Specifically the effects around garbage collection were complicated and very hard to tune; 318 kB
  3. ^ Prechelt, L. (1999). "Technical opinion: comparing Java vs. C/C++ efficiency differences to interpersonal differences" (pdf). Communications of the ACM. 42 (10): 109–112. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.64.2193. doi:10.1145/317665.317683. S2CID 18549854.
  4. ^ Ghosh, D. (2004). "Generics in Java and C++ a comparative model". ACM SIGPLAN Notices. 39 (5): 40–47. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.453.2181. doi:10.1145/997140.997144. S2CID 14265893.
  5. ^ Mayrand, J.; Patenaude, J.F.; Merlo, E.; Dagenais, M.; Laguë, B. (2000). "Software assessment using metrics: A comparison across large C++ and Java systems". Annals of Software Engineering. 9 (1). Springer: 117–141. doi:10.1023/A:1018924724621. S2CID 9023504.
  6. ^ Gherardi, L.; Brugali, D.; Comotti, D. (2012). A java vs. c++ performance evaluation: a 3d modeling benchmark (PDF). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 7628. Springer. pp. 161–172. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34327-8_17. ISBN 978-3-642-34326-1. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  7. ^ As’ad Mahmoud Alnaser; Omar AlHeyasat; Ashraf Abdel-Karim Abu-Ein; Hazem (Moh’d Said) Hatamleh; Ahmed A. M. Sharadqeh (2012). "Time Comparing between Java and C++ Software". Journal of Software Engineering and Applications. 5 (8): 630–633. doi:10.4236/jsea.2012.58072.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SailingInABathTub: Wikipedia is not for comparing things though, regardless of how comparable the two products are. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a buying guide. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Comparison of programming languages, Category:Programming language comparisons, and Category:Comparison of individual programming languages? SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub: I'm slightly indecisive on what I think of these. On the first hand, those seem different from the one in this discussion. I'd say they are more encyclopedic list rather than guides like this one is. On the second hand however, they are still somewhat more of an answer to "what should I use?" versus an encyclopedia entry and I don't see any other use of those for anyone besides people looking for what they should use, and really only serve people outside of Wikipedia. I'd say I lean more towards deleting them all, because the only other comparisons on Wikipedia that I know of involve languages, like Portuguese vs Spanish and US English vs UK English. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Comparison of top chess players throughout history, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of American and Canadian football, Comparison of Macintosh models and many, many more. I think notable comparisons are pretty ubiquitous on Wikipedia. I agree though that this particular article requires improvement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonable position to take that Wikipedia is not for comparing things, but it would need a wider discussion than this for us to accept that principle. I find 780 pages in article space with "comparison of" in the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over those articles, it seems many "comparison of" deletion discussions are contentious. There are definitely some notable comparisons, but I'm not sure (and I don't know of a guideline about this) what metric should be used to gauge whether a comparison deserves its own article. I daresay this topic is more notable than "Comparison of ALGOL 68 and C", but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. With regards to the presented sources, most of the recent ones are comparing particular implementations in Java and C++—not the languages themselves. And anything published before, say, 2006, is pretty firmly outdated; this was before HotSpot really got good at optimization and much before C++11 came out, a version which transformed the modern language. Ovinus (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: comparison is quite informative and exhaustive. - Hatchens (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The motion (or lean-toward) to delete all comparative articles directly contradicts a long-standing precedent positing that some comparative articles do belong on Wikipedia, complete with their own page. The Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars article has withstood more than a couple separate VfDs, whereas a formerly existing "Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon" article was deleted. As Ovinus correctly asserts, the issue is dependent on a presently non-existent metric to dictate which comparisons are and are not notable. To begin considering such a metric, we should primarily consider a specific comparison's (1) general prevalence or logical connection, (2) historical or social significance, or (3) legislative relevance. In the case of the Trek/Wars article, its notability arises from the fact that the comparison spawned a sort of social phenomenon; likewise, the immensely pervasive Java/C++ comparisons hold academic and professional significance. As Java is directly influenced by C++, the comparison has historical significance, validating the older presented sources and lending to their encyclopedic (albeit not learning manual-made) relevance. There are serious issues in the article's structure and presentation, but these qualify editing, not deletion. Misandrism (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Summarizing several refutations of the OP's arguments, partially discussed above:
  • "Although this article's been around for a while, I don't see it as encyclopedic." --- This is a valid perspective but if true, it would require site-wide consensus and not just targeting this specific article
  • "None of the cited sources explicitly contrast the two languages, so it's mostly original research to compare them beyond face value." --- SailingInABathTub lists sources which do independently cover the comparison, and these should be added to the article
  • "comparing two vastly different languages" --- this part is just wrong IMO, C++ and Java are often considered directly adjacent and mentioned in the same sentence. They are the two mainstream languages most known for performance and OOP. It's true that for example, an article on "Comparison of Python and Haskell" or "Comparison of Pascal and Brainfuck" would be ridiculous, but that is not the case here.
The article does, however, need a better lead written. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been some refutation to the keep arguments, it seems that the existence of sources that directly compare the two languages and the notability conferred from that have shown an argument to keep under WP:GNG; however, there is still a dispute as to how WP:WAX factors into all of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while I have some sympathy for the WP:NOT and WP:SYNTH argument of the nom, the fact is, the editors have managed to put together a quality resource based on verifiable claims that do not have the kind of V/N issues that the SYNTH policy guards us against. The article is problematic, but deletion would not improve our offering as a reference resource and no reasonable ATD has been offered. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fosshost

Fosshost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement and fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Pretty much all primary sources and self reporting, no reliable sources available. Only claim to notability is a 10-day partnership with freenode (not notable both per WP:NINI and WP:1EVENT). Pretty much only self sources passing mentions, and page is a giant advertisement. Naleksuh (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why would Fosshost advertise, since they're exclusively an open source project providing services to other foss projects, there is no commercial intent or gain for them having a page on wikipedia. The partnership with freenode was notable and caused significant interest from a large number of people, not to mention that they received support from another notable person which has an established page on wikipedia that has been on the wiki since March 2020 (which isn't even addressed in the page). The article can be improved and I will take on this task. The quality of the article is not if better quality than the SPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software in the Public Interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.54.208 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — 193.178.54.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Conflict-of-interest promotion of projects has little to do with for-profit status. There's plenty of advertisement, even paid spam, by non-profits. MarioGom (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: Yeah, and I wasn't saying that Fosshost organization was advertising either, I said the page was an advertisement. Naleksuh (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naleksuh was a member of the Fosshost community and was removed for their conduct. This user has a personal conflict of interest in the project and their work. Their disruptive behaviour continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.117 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — 82.132.245.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 23 December 2021 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Forever

Amiga Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may not meet the general notability guidelines. It is true that this Amiga emulator stands out as the only emulator licensed to distribute copies of the Kickstart ROM, and it is certainly well-known to the Amiga community, but I have not been able to find much coverage on the subject elsewhere. Of what I was able to find, the vast majority did come from mainstream publications dedicated to computers or video games, but a lot of these were just passing mentions or tutorials on how to run Amiga software on modern PCs, although some of them were reviews or announcements of newly released versions of Amiga Forever.

Never mind some of the issues troubling this article. One copyrighted image is enough, but two seems unnecessary, and all of its three sources are primary. The article lies on the boundary of being or not being notable, but I am more inclined to believing that it is not. I had the same issue a few months back with DX-Ball, a former article that I marked for deletion (a shame since I played that a lot, but that problem seems to be common with earlier freeware games). Similary, I would argue that UAE (emulator) is not notable and could simply be merged into this article in the event that it is kept, because this separately released software is included in the Amiga Forever package. I doubt that this article should be kept, but given its notability among Amiga enthusiasts, I cannot say where it should be merged. Amiga, Inc. since it licensed the software to distribute the Kickstart ROM? Kickstart (Amiga) since it is technically still being sold by this means as of this post? I would like some help on deciding the future of the article. FreeMediaKid$ 23:49, 12 December 2021 (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 NeXT. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NeXTWORLD

NeXTWORLD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This magazine itself does not appear to pass WP:GNG from the sources in the article or those I could find online. I propose that the article be redirected to NeXTSTEP, where the topic could be sufficiently covered with a single sentence in the history section. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2021 (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. MBisanz talk 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operating system advocacy

AfDs for this article:
Operating system advocacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated twice for deletion in 2005, and was kept for rationales that I believe do not or no longer apply. I don't believe having an article on OS "fanboys" has any current merit on Wikipedia, and the sources in the article do not convince me otherwise. Advocacy for certain operating systems should belong in the articles of those operating systems (or their own articles like Apple evangelist), and comparison of operating systems already exists. A keep rationale in the 2005 discussion was that the latter article needed a more user-friendly "introduction". Assuming that this rationale still holds (which I don't know if it does), either operating system or an introduction to operating systems article would work better than this article, which is currently (not that this is a valid rationale) a steaming pile of garbage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2021 (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 05:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mautic

Mautic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no reliable source with sig coverage. Only insignificant awards and self-published sources Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Behind the moors:, I beg to differ. Your claim about insignificant coverage and self-published sources is unsubstantiated. You can clearly see plenty of third party sources including a published book about the article's subject. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Added additional sources. 2) Mautic has every right to a Wikipedia article as any other open-source software bundle today. It has already achieved world-wide notability matching those of WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, GIMP, phpMyAdmin and others... Furthermore, it is also included along with them in out-of-the-box app installation catalogues on popular server management platforms such as CPanel and Bitnami. --Omer Toledano (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are some mentions on Google News but nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP IMO. There's no such thing as a "right to a Wikipedia article". (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GIMP is pretty much the gold standard in open-source imaging programs, this is one of hundreds of open-source pieces of software, so to compare the two isn't correct. See the links in the GIMP article. No one has right to anything on wikipedia, you have to prove notability. It seems to have one minor award in 2015 in a magazine, that's about it. Oaktree b (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1060849363"