Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Shortcuts

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[edit]

Tully (app)[edit]

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

The sourcing that exists is very weak. Several are interviews with the app's co-founder/promoter, Joyner Lucas, who is a notable musician, but notability is not inherited from him. Other sources appear to be either PR-based; press releases reposted onto other websites. A few passing mentions. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, particularly if HNHH is not considered reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Computing. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (demoparty)[edit]

(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. The name of the event makes it more difficult to search. I was only able to find mentions, such as "One of the most traditional and largest events still running today is demoparty X, a specific event for the Commodore 64 platform with the first edition held in 1995 in the Netherlands (POLGáR, 2016)." (machine translated from Portuguese) in a paper about the demoscene in Brazil. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties.

Edit: X is also discussed in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár:

"The great meeting events of the Commodore 64 scene in the second half of the nineties were the great international demoparties: The Party in Denmark, Assembly in Finland, and mainly the German Mekka Symposium and Breakpoint. These parties, in addition to the great annual X parties organized by Success & The Ruling Company. For the first time, in 1995, this party was held in Utrecht, Netherlands but moved several times to different cities. Some still remember X’95 as the best X party, and later X parties as the best parties of C64 scene history. Interestingly enough the X still takes place every year. In 1997 the party united with Takeover, and became a multiplatform party under X-Takeover label but the cool oldschool atmosphere was broken by Amiga and PC users, so the cooperation split up. X is still the largest Commodore-only demoparty."

. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Netherlands. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thue (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, non-notable, one of hundreds if not thousands of esolangs. wound theology ◈ 07:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage online/in books to justify inclusion per WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in cryptography[edit]

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

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One alternative is a move to List of publications in cryptography without "important", while applying Wikipedia notability as the WP:LISTCRIT.
Also, the same discussion is applicable to List of important publications in science, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in medicine, List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, List of important publications in statistics, List of important publications in data science, List of important publications in geology, List of important publications in economics, List of important publications in philosophy, and List of important publications in pedagogy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not workable, few individual publications have an article so it would be unclear what should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: I see dozens of the entries in these lists with standalone Wikipedia articles. That's more than enough and is a clear criterion. See List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, and List of important publications in economics for example. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry! If you meant cryptography specifically, then yes there are too few. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like pretty much all of these date from the really early days of Wikipedia, well before the project had clearly defined guidance for list criteria. I don't think any of them are very good articles and probably would be in favour of a healthy dose of WP:TNT. I think List of publications of X with a notability criteria is the way to go - but that can't happen without blowing up all of these articles and starting over. BrigadierG (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Yes, I meant the nominated article but most others are also short on wikilinks. Even those that have articles, though, are almost all books or very old or written by the most famous scientists. Practically no journal articles would ever have an article. I don't think a list of primarily textbooks would be good content for a list of publications. However, if the criteria is simply being a publication with a WP article, that could also end up including books that aren't important yet someone happened to find some reviews and write and article. While I agree that "important" is subjective, are there actually any problems with these lists? Have people been arguing about what should be on them at all? Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I think a book can meet the relevant wiki-notability standard and deserve an article without being epochal. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate article at Bibliography of cryptography (which I moved from Books on cryptography). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general. Picking them off one by one is not the way to go. That said, we HAVE criteria to determine if an article is notable and belongs on the list. If there is a reliable independent secondary source that says that it is notable then it should be on the list. Otherwise no. Simple as that. Cryptology is a mature and distinct enough field of study that it absolutely warrants a list like this if lists like this are deemed worthy to exist based on broader discussion. Epachamo (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that one source saying that a publication is noteworthy will always be enough. Plenty of books, papers, etc., get recommended as "further reading" at the end of textbook chapters. That's a degree of recognition, for sure, but it's a long way from "this paper won the authors a Nobel Prize". XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general.

This /is/ the discussion. If the outcome of this discussion is to delete, it creates precedent that makes the deletion of others more likely. The reverse is also true. Usually what happens if you try to open a broader discussion about deleting a larger set of articles in one go is people also beat that down with cries of WP:TRAINWRECK. It leads to a catch-22 keep vote - if you try to delete one at time, that's not acceptable because other similar articles exist and there needs to be more discussion, and if you try to delete more at a time that's also not acceptable because it's too many articles to evaluate the notability of in one go. BrigadierG (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As written, this list is under-sourced synth-cruft based on personal opinion. I'd be inclined to delete it. However, I think we ~~need~~ could maybe have a more broad discussion (an RfC or something of that sort) about whether lists like these are feasible and how to do them correctly. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, I went away, thought about it, read the list again, considered the comments here... and have settled on deletion being the way to go. Taken by itself, the page is just no good: ancient synth-cruft from a bygone age. Workable inclusion criteria have not emerged from the discussion here, so fixing the page (presuming that anyone is even willing to volunteer the time and effort) is not a viable option. A more general discussion about how to do historical bibliographies of technical fields still sounds like it could be useful, but there's no way that this list represents the right method. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list fails to have a clear selection criteria following WP:LISTCRIT and is largely personal opinion / WP:SYNTH. The alternative option of "renaming the list without 'important' and using a Wikipedia-notability criterion" doesn't work for this particular list because there is only one entry in the list with its own Wikipedia article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Mate 8[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullarbor (demoparty)[edit]

(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 (including by searching in Trove). Also, the Nullarbor website had a section for media coverage; many of the sources listed there either aren't reliable, don't provide significant coverage, or aren't independent (media/press releases). A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Australia. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually the 2nd AfD, the previous one was in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party). --Mika1h (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but page looks to me to've been AI-written. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt. The article was created in 2007 and BLARd in 2017. Jay 💬 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Prob not then. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovirology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cryptovirology

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

This seems to be something coined by A. Young, and was not adopted in the wider world. Other sources such as Scientific American and the NIST do not mention the word. Also, COI editing is involved here: Special:Contributions/Adamlucasyoung. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I don't see use of the term in any RS, other than here [1] and I'm not sure if that is even a valid source. Appears to be a new word that never caught on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stand corrected, Gscholar has many papers using the term and it's been in use since the 1990's [2], [3] and [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is a paper by the person who coined the term originally, and so is [4]. Leaves [3], which is not enough. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Oaktree b got one that passed the nominator's litmus test but there plenty are more. For example:

There are ~~684~~ 855 hits on Google Scholar for this term, only a few of which are by Young. Yes, many are not RS but these would have been found on the most minimal WP:BEFORE search. If @PhotographyEdits still feels this term has not been "adopted in the wider world" then I think it would be incumbent on them to explain what efforts they made to exclude the possibility the google scholar results contain less than two reliable sources with significant coverage of the term. Oblivy (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of passing mentions does not mean it passes the WP:GNG.

Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. A whole lot are just returning a hit because they cite the original paper by A. Young but do not add anything about the term. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider the Bhardwaj & Das book chapter? It is literally about cryptivirology ("the study in this chapter deals with the dynamics of worm propagation in cryptovirol-
ogy"). Is that a passing mention?

I don't understand this: Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. Can you explain? Note that when "a whole lot" of papers cite a paper about a concept that can be evidence of notability.

Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar? Your nomination statement only talked about existing sources and I think disregarding hundreds of hits would generate some explanation. Oblivy (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar?

Yes, I did.

Please also see my comment below.

The ransomware article weirdly states it is part of a larger field called cryptovirology, while this does not seem to be the case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~, not a standard terminology, looks like a promo for its author. Artem.G (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- still sounds strange to me, but google scholar shows 855 results. Artem.G (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The first paper in the results cites Wikipedia itself. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Two books here [5] and [6]. The term is also used in French [7] and here [8]. The term might not be that well-known, but it's used enough to at least show basic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  and here [9] from 2008. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something I did not mentioned but I should make clear: the article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As the originator of the terms says in the following article: https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/cryptovirology/

"Years later, the media relabeled the cryptoviral extortion attack as ransomware."

Therefore, this article should be a redirect to ransomware article. The term should only be mentioned in the early history of ransomware. Also, meeting WP:GNG does not mean the subject is required to have an article. We can merge an outdated term into the article with the common name.

PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudreach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2A02:6B6B:16C:0:D8BF:FBCC:5819:FF15 proposed deletion with the rationale:

Reads like promotional material or like the About page of the company. Probably conflict of interest. No substance.

However, since Cloudreach was discussed at AfD before, PROD cannot be used. I have converted this to an AfD for them. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was previously deleted and for good reasons. Most reliable sources are not about the company but about bigger companies who bought the business, and even those are flimsy and don't justify an article about this. Additionally the company website doesn't even exist anymore which is another reason to think this doesn't pass WP:N. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same person who proposed deletion? (The first two segments of the IPv6 addresses are identical.) If so, you need to disclose this fact, to avoid creating an illusion of support (WP:BADSOCK). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. Didn't mean to trick anybody (IP was changed by ISP) but indeed I should have mentioned it in my response. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry if I came across as too confrontational. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - insufficient sources to merit inclusion. WmLawson (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as one Delete vote is from the nominator and this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion due to earlier AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Atos: Seems to be fine to incorporate a small section into the Atos article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or !delete if not merging, I'm ok with that as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is possible but all the sources are WP:ORGTRIV so I'm not even sure it's worth that or a redirect. Based on the thinness of the available sourcing, delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Testing Framework[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this article in no relation to test automation frameworks, to which I would say there is more GNG than what is presented in this? Conyo14 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Conyo14: It appears that the article's subject is a specific collection of libraries for test automation. The concept behind test automation frameworks are covered on the existing page under a subheading. Given this, the specific collection of libraries present seem to fail WP:GNG. Manyyassin (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I would have to agree then: Delete. Conyo14 (talk) 06:36, 10 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!} 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NetBSD, if possible. I see a number of references to this test library - it seems to have significance. (Add "NetBSD" to the G-search to get relevant results.) However, it is not mentioned in the NetBSD article. Lamona (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lamona: While NetBSD does use this software, and this is what this software was developed for originally, it is still a generic piece of software. I think the details shown on this page would be mostly irrelevant on the NetBSD page. Manyyassin (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important Party[edit]

(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]

DUnit[edit]

(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]

Chris Sullo[edit]

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]

Phil Agcaoili[edit]

(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]

Saturne Party[edit]

(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]

Scene description language[edit]

(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]

Ecto (software)[edit]

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 [10], [11], [12], [13]. 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) ([14], [15], [16] 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]

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]