[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computers)
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

edit

Energy-assisted magnetic recording

edit
Energy-assisted magnetic recording (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)

Novice user created this page which is an extended WP:DICTIONARY definition. There already exists a page on Heat assisted magnetic recording, and Microwave assisted magnetic recording is mentioned in quite a few existing pages. I added a PROD, but novice editor objected (on Talk page) so I am coverting it to an AfD. A decent article on Microwave assisted magnetic recording is a something that might be done, but this page is just an WP:DICTIONARY stub that combines heat and microwave without providing useful encyclopedic information. TNT as this is not a good starting point. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace as a Service

edit
Workspace as a Service (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)

Extended dictionary definition created directly to main by a novice editor. The topic is already included in As a service, so there is no rationale for a new stub. Original editor objected to a PROD (with some non-WP comments) on the talk page, so I am converting it to an AfD. Delete unless someone turns this into a real encyclopedic article, which I am dubious about. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted, nothing more than a glorified dictionary definition at the moment and I fail to see a significant amount of unique content that could go there at the moment. If this becomes an actually significant concept that demands its own artilce in the future, we can build an article then. No use keeping a stub as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954 proposed this article to be deleted and said "There is already an entry in As a service. At most this should be replaced by a redirect and the sources added to that page". But according to that line of thinking, the article Windows 11 should also not exist because there is an entry about it at Microsoft Windows. Same for iPhone 8, Samsung Galaxy S8 and many others. Workspace as a Service looks too me like a stub that has the potential to be developed in the future as more companies are starting to provide such a service - just like the other stubs mentioned in the as a service article, like for example Blockchain as a service, Content as a service or Logging as a service. Arwenz (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SenzMate

edit
SenzMate (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)

At the moment, it seems like it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this company. The only other coverage I found was this interview I found in Lanka Business Online, which is an interview with little to no independent or secondary content. The Daily FT articles read like press releases, so I am inclined to exclude them based on the precautionary principle expressed in WP:ORGIND. May be a few more years before the requisite coverage exists for us to be able to write a proper article on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenLab

edit
CitizenLab (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)

Does not meet WP:ORG. Has been marked as problematic since 2020. Just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its main offering. The awards do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves. I can't find sources with significant coverage of this company, like its particular influence on citizen engagement. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest you look into and are most welcome to integrate in the page:
The first two sources are primary sources- users of your company's offering. The third seems to be a directory listing with a description. The people powered Chile story might be okay, but that's only one. The rating is not as it's not significant coverage. The company's own reports are primary sources as well. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot IRCAI = International Research Centre on Artificial Intelligence (IRCAI) under the auspices of UNESCO, not just some directory listing website :) Sören3300 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it's still not significant coverage that contributes to notability. Personally I never heard of IRCAI(not that's it's required I have heard of it) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- one of the leading platforms in the space: https://democracy-technologies.org/participation/citizen-lab-platform/ Sören3300 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The World Summit Awards have an article, so that works towards contributing towards notability(but the other awards listed should just be removed as they don't have articles). The award the founder received is for the founder, not the company itself. That's still two- we usually look for three with in-depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't examine if they were press-release type articles. They seem to be interviews. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Mozilla Thunderbird

edit
History of Mozilla Thunderbird (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)

Significant violations of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and I have reason to believe it also violates WP:UNDUE due to the article's documenting of all versions of Thunderbird, including every single beta version. Without the table, there is not enough content to justify the article's existence, at least currently. It also has longstanding issues, including a lack of reliable, high-quality, secondary sources as almost every single source is just a link to Mozilla's own release notes, which is in incredibly heavy primary source territory. I feel like so much focus has been put on filling out the table that it has been to the detriment of the article as a whole. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Egypt

edit
Microsoft Egypt (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)

One of many, many country specific subsidiaries of Microsoft that does not seem to be independently notable under WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support redirecting to Microsoft. Brandon (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, Brandon! Going forward, could you please include such ATDs in the intro? gidonb (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time Cmix

edit
Real-time Cmix (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)

I couldn't find good enough sources to add to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corvigo

edit
Corvigo (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)

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

edit
Jason Parker (security researcher) (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)

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.
In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.
As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.
Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.
Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed all of the unsourced information and analysis, stubifying the page. I think this is closer to WP:BARE than before. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1252219764"