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

Hacking of the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

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

Recommend draftification - article currently violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Politics, and Politicians. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this will pass WP:NEVENT. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Maybe once we have actual information on what is in the leaks and if Iran is really behind it, the article can be more than stub-length.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LineLab

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

Relatively new product where the only sources about its uses are by the original creators; some third party sources are not relevant as they do not discuss the software. Page was previously tagged by @Chaotic Enby and Jlwoodwa: for promotional tone and other issues. Tags were removed without a significant change in tone, and without adding sources to demonstrate notability. I find nothing in Google search except the company itself, so it is time for an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TESCREAL

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete (nomination). 'TESCREAL' refers to a nonsense conspiracy theory that disparages people such as Nick Bostrom without citing any sources that are credible on the question of whether Nick Bostrom is an 'evil eugenicist' or whatever. If the principals hadn't coined 'TESCREAL' the title would be Weird accusations by Torres and Gebru that everyone who talks about AI (but isn't focused on certain political priorities) is part of a worldwide conspiracy to implement an catastrophic version of eugenics and it would be obvious that it shouldn't be the title of an article on Wikipedia. The term 'TESCREAL' is simply an attempt to invoke reification bias – the idea that something with a name necessarily 'carves reality at the joints'. ~~Jruderman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)~~ (E: due to new COI, I am disconnecting my name from the nomination reasons and downgrading from bold to italic.) Jruderman (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There remains significant sourcing on this article that indicates WP:N. there are mostly WP:SPS blogs that describe this as a conspiracy... Folks attempt to invoke WP:FRINGE on this mostly as they see any criticism of their pet philosophy as outrageous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still feel like the majority of the "Alleged TESCREALists" section is WP:SYNTH whereby big name people who are well-connected to ONE of these ideologies, or loosely/possibly connected to a few, are lumped into being part of the theorized TESCREAL "movement", by either random commentators, or some journalists seeking readers.
I think these types of tenuous connections to an overarching ideology are almost WP:GOSSIP, but I guess Wikipedia's policies around famous people MAY make it acceptable: if the news covers "Elon Musk says Trump is anti-TESCREAL" and "Trump says Musk is a TESCREAList" - than we can include those sourced personal attack statements?---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH states that wikipedians can't do original research and use that. Most sourcing in article is pretty clear about directly stating person x is associated with TESCREAL. If multiple sourcing all state that these folks are criticized by person x as being part of TESCREAL, I see no reason to not include.

"Some have alleged Elon to support some TESCREAL ideals. (source 1, source 2)" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific indication of which attribution should be considered wrong? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Avatar317's concerns, and have removed the various "so-and-so is alleged to support TESCREAL because they support one of the letters" content. The rest of the article seems well-enough sourced to be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding removal of material, see [[1]].

If necessary, we can open up another talk section about it or WP:BLPN section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've reverted the indiscriminate blanking because this has already been discussed at length. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the BLPN discussion remotely having a consensus to include what is, roughly, third-party accusations regarding an ideological bundle that the targets either disagree with or have not even deigned to acknowledge. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that the content was added back change your position? Alenoach (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, and the suggestion that this is a "nonsense conspiracy theory" is Jruderman's own opinion — not one that exists in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit to address a few of the arguments by other !voters.
- WP:FRINGE concerns should be handled in the same way we handle other notable fringe topics; that is, if there is quality sourcing available that describes this as a fringe theory, it should be incorporated into the article. But claiming that the topic is fringe based on personal opinion, without any RS to support that stance, and arguing it should be deleted because of that, falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.
- Concerns about the "Alleged TESCREALists" section should be handled via the normal editorial processes (talk page, WP:BLPN, WP:RFC if needed), not AfD. The section makes up only about a quarter of the entire article, and certainly wouldn't justify WP:TNT even if it was determined that the section should be omitted.
- I don't think the page should be merged back into Gebru or Torres' pages, primarily because 1) it independently meets the GNG, but also because 2) it will result in two roughly identical sections at each page which then need to be maintained separately. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are required for inclusion, but we also try to stick to including only things that are true. There is no rule requiring reliable sources for removal of misinformation or personal attacks. Jruderman (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think an article needs to be deleted because it's a "nonsense conspiracy theory", you need to at least demonstrate that that's more than just your own personal opinion (not to mention demonstrate why that means it ought to be deleted — many nonsense conspiracy theories are well documented on Wikipedia). I could say that we should delete the article on, I don't know, eugenicists because I think the term is a "nonsense conspiracy theory", but such an argument would be rightly ignored at AfD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which sourcing is unreliable or untrue? and can you provide the evidence? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres. The sources that use the term TESCREAL often relay directly the views of Timnit Gebru or Émile Torres. The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies, so making it the title of a Wikipedia article is somewhat tendentious. And the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks, often attributing opinions to people that would deny having them. Dispassionate, fact-based journalism generally avoids ideologically loaded terms like TESCREAL and uses more precise vocabulary to refer to the philosophy they are talking about. Alenoach (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term has received widespread use beyond Gebru and Torres, and I mean use, not just reporting. The sources in the article prove this, especially the academic ones. A grouping can be a concept also, these are not mutually exclusive. Can you provide examples of the mentioned 'personal attacks'? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point

1) "Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres"
I don't think it would meet WP:MERGEREASON, which specifically argues against merging if:
- The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
- The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short
2) "The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies,"

TESCREAL meets WP:GNG due to reliable sourcing. It probably is a contentious grouping and philosophers can argue about it all they want, but that doesn't mean we get to be arbiters of whether it is valid or not, only if it is notable. And the context of personal attacks, in terms of criticizing WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, seems tenuous.

3) the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks,

This is mostly WP:BLP talk again. See above my reply to Walsh, but we've discussed that criticism of WP:PUBLICFIGURE can and should be documented.

4) "Dispassionate, fact-based journalism"

Most contemporary philosophies often do not get massive news coverage. In fact sourcing for wikipedia is only mandated to be WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT. There is no mandate for entirely unbiased sourcing and it seems onerous to demand that of TESCREAL when other philosophies regularly use sourcing that is biased towards them.

As an example, when looking at the Effective Altruism article, I count at least 9 sources from MacKaskill, the founder of EA, 3 from centre for effective altruism, at least 4 more from Peter Singer, another leader of EA, and a few opinions and philosophical arguments in journals. Its not wrong to use WP:OPINION to fill in sourcing.

In terms of reliable sourcing in the current article that discusses the term (and arguable aren't opinion pieces), see the following: [2] [3] [4] [5] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced and has received widespread use in the media and also a considerable use in academic literature. The language of the nomination is highly POV and personal. The editor has not provided a credible argument for his accusation that this is a 'nonsense conspiracy theory', and the statement that the sources (which one?) does not cite 'any sources that are credible' is factually wrong. The justification of the nomination has more bias than the whole article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no conspiracy or anything fringe here. There is legitimate and significant criticism against the unifying and overlapping narratives promoted by those in the transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism communities. Gebru and Torres have quite remarkably presented a cohesive critical theory of technological utopianism in the form of a simple to remember neologism to describe the last 25 years of a campaign of distraction and misdirection that has infected entire parts of our society and prevented social change from occurring, all because a small group of tech bros believe that humanity should stop addressing our current social problems and simply resign ourselves to becoming cyborgs. This is, actually, what people like Kurzweil, Musk, and many others believe. It's a legitimate topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth noting here the presence of a keep vote made on the explicit basis of the article's usefulness as a political smear. jp×g 🗯️ 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not worth it, as there’s no political smear implied in anything I’ve said here. This discourse is part of the longstanding criticism of technological utopianism. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It has to do with the irrational basis for utopian ideas promoted by people in the tech industry which often has the result of delaying mitigation of social issues. One contemporary example that is being widely discussed by philosophers in this regard, and is part of the same body of work, is the notion of promoting space exploration, such as the kind we find in the language of Elon Musk. This language is entirely irrational, as there is no rational basis for supporting space exploration (and I consider myself a strong supporter of it). This example is directly relevant. Musk appeals to the threat of human extinction to promote colonizing Mars. He speaks of becoming a multiplanetary civilization, which is the language of mitigating the existential risk of extinction, in other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. By so doing, he gets lucrative military contracts and government subsidies, and never has to actually deliver on his utopian promise. Meanwhile, many other social issues go unaddressed without funding. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this have anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia POLICY? I understand that you like this concept as a criticism of TU, but that is NOT a policy based argument. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a weird comment. I just directly answered and refuted the allegation that I was supporting an article based on a political smear. I was not. In my reply, I gave an example of the criticism and how it directly pertains to the subject of the article in question. This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as stated by the nominator. Since you evidently missed it, to reiterate: it’s not a conspiracy like the nom claimed, and it’s not a political smear of any kind. It’s a relevant and timely criticism of technological utopianism based on relevant, scholarly opinions. The criteria for deletion has not been met by the nom or anyone else. Time to close. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the risk of getting dragged on Mastodon for this aside, I think this is a WP:TNT case. The prior three comments to keep were from the article's primary authors. Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months, and pretty much any thread started there is guaranteed to get a very prompt hostile response from one of them. Neutrality concerns are vaguely insinuated to be part of the conspiracy. I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK. There was a BLPN discussion about this before -- while there was only one person in the discussion who wasn't active at the article's talk page, their response was that it shouldn't have a list of people alleged as being it. Citing this discussion as some sort of definitive proof that this section needs to be in the article is very bizarre to me. But it is one of many bizarre claims that are made on a regular basis with respect to this article.

Essentially: two people claim there is some group that does XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. Cool. A few people have reported that these two people claimed there was some group that did XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. That's also cool. But what we don't have is any reliable source saying this -- they're quoting someone else saying this. It is a very fundamental distinction. For example: a certain politician (incorrectly) said another politician was born in Kenya; there are all kinds of sources that reflect this; but that source does not say the guy was born in Kenya! It says that the guy said he was. We would not use this source to say that the guy was born in Kenya: it's just common sense.

The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult, which exists for the sole purpose of denigrating people that its creators disagree with. Someone might respond to this by saying "no, you've got it all wrong, they're just describing a tendency". Yeah: they are describing a tendency... of people who they hate and think are evil, and regularly go on extended diatribes about how they are ruining everything, and created the term to be able to say negative things about them more easily. They post on social media about this Wikipedia article.

Nobody else uses this term. It is not used by the people who it allegedly describes. There is no group of people who call themselves this. The term is not ever used for neutral commentary on a "tendency" -- it's used as an insult for when people are stupid. We would not, with a straight face, write a Wikipedia article called DemonRat Party and then say, wow look, all of the sources say that they're awful people who love taxes and crime, we'd better just write about these claims at great length, because look they're notable. Imagine for a minute that a WSJ editorial and National Review columnist called the Democrats the "DemonRats", so we had RS SIGCOV: we would still not turn DemonRat Party blue because the resulting article would be bad. We would definitely not want to keep it if it were being written entirely by people who had spent several months arguing that we needed to include diverse perspectives by writing said article to be as long as possible and say as many negative things about the DemonRats as we could possibly fit in it. It would also be bad to write an article called Child molestors and/or Donald Trump supporters, WP:SYNTH together a bunch of sources criticizing each of these groups individually, and then say "this is clearly notable because we have 800 studies about child molestation, 800 studies about Trump voters, and then 2 thinkpieces saying one was the other".

Political insults can be notable, but this isn't an article about a political insult. It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) of the factual claims about politics being made by its originators. While it's possible to come up with a bunch of passing mentions where someone used this term, and a few pieces of coverage of the people who invented it saying it -- and while it may indeed manage to barely scrape past WP:DICTDEF -- it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing. What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH bordering on WP:FRANKENSTEIN, and I think that since the term (and indeed this specific Wikipedia article) is being actively used as a cudgel to own the libs, we should either make this into a stub or a redirect or an article that is very closely focused to be about the term as a term and not a dumping ground for random political commentary that happens to mention the term. jp×g 🗯️ 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point by point rebuttal of this wall of text.

"Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months"

That we can argue against bad-faith arguments and demand you point out specific places where the article is failing is not owning the article. If you cannot point to specific arguments, and keep changing why you think this article is bad indicates flawed WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.

"I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK."

Every section on that article is concerned with TESCREAL. Looking over most sourcing, most sourcing talks for long lengths about TESCREAL.

"There was a BLPN discussion about this before"

You never answered questions about WP:PUBLICFIGURE or why it would not apply. Also, I have always found the reasoning that TESCREAL=Political Attack to be a bit flawed. By that logic, the section about Transhumanism#New_eugenics would indicate every transhumanist is a eugenicist.

"Essentially: two people claim"

The Kenya Birther conspiracy can be attributed to Donald Trump, then we can use overwhelming sourcing to state its false. Do you have overwhelming sourcing to state that TESCREAL is a conspiracy that balances out the dozens of sourcing that explains it? In the past folks have attempted to completely delete large portions of this article on the basis of a single blog page.

"The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult"

Unless you find a source that suggests this, beyond the blog post of the philosophers that are criticized by Gebru and Torres, this argument is unsubstantiated. Even if it was a political insult, we have plenty of those documented, along with alleged people who have epitomised the political insult.

" Nobody else uses this term."

There are close to 25 sources in the article that all use the term. The original AfD was deleted for notability, but since then the term has come into resurgence with significant sourcing.

"it's used as an insult for when people are stupid"

Sourcing and the article says nothing about intelligence of the people who are alleged to be TESCREALISTS.

"It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) "

Find the critical information to criticize the term or to justify a policy such as WP:FALSEBALANCE. So far, most sourcing indicates that people take this criticism from Gebru and Torres as actual philosophical arguments, not just some petty insult.

"it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing."

Again, provide a list of why all the sourcing is bad?

"What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH "

Every sentence is cited and attributed. We do no original research. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info. JPxG has:

continued to assert that I insult everyone I disagree with on the talk page (I was confused tbh?) [6]
that Joaquim has falsely accused editors of COIs on the talk page [7]
and now has suggested I and Joaquim have been WP:OWNING the page by continuing to edit, discuss controversial changes

He has thrown out constant walls of inconsequential texts and vague WP:WIKILAWYERING that take time to debunk. I'm happy to work point by point, but much of this remains frustrating waste of time. I'm a firm believer that all editors are biased, myself included, but much of this has become less of dealing with the article, and more WP:FORUM behavior that may be worth ignoring in the future. For any closer, this latest comment by JPxG could well be considered WP:FORUM instead of actually based on real wiki policy and discarded.

I want actual sourcing that proves me wrong, so we can include it in this article with the criticism it needs, like all philosophical arguments. (see my edits where I add criticism here [8][[9] [10] [11]) I am willing to engage in good-faith discussion, instead of blindly thrown out wikiterms that dont apply. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed permission to type three paragraphs of text at an AfD. As for your "points" -- you were given specific objections to specific pieces of content, some different times, by some different people -- why don't you go read through the old threads? I'm not going to just arbitrarily type out eight paragraphs in their entirety over and over again every time you feel like it -- especially when your response to a several-long-paragraph post is to insult it for being a wall of text.

I agree completely that trying to engage on the talk page with you and Joachim (its top two editors by a wide margin) is a frustrating waste of time. This is why I don't think the article is salvageable. jp×g 🗯️ 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - from WP:PROFRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." - I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I see this as similar to the Cold fusion case, where the authors went DIRECTLY to the press to publicize their results, rather than wait for others in their field to vet their findings.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that there are already folks already citing Gebru's and Torres' works, which are published in First Monday, which is a peer reviewed internet focused journal.
Cold fusion gets debunked by reliable sourcing. I don't see reliable sourcing that "debunks" the idea of TESCREAL, at best like philosophical back and forths that discuss and sometimes criticize it.
Gebru in particular is a highly regarded scholar in the field of computer ethics. Torres is still a postdoc, but working with Gebru on this seems like the normal academic process.
What would the debunking of a counterargument against a philosophy look like exactly?

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

How do you even establish that? Every mention of TESCREAL must trace its origin, this alone doesnt make it simply 'Gebru & Torres theory/creation'. Many of the sources do use TESCREAL beyond simply stating its origin.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.

Thats not how philosophy works, there is no agreement of validity, people simply use concepts for their analytical value, and the article does present academic literature confirming this use. By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism and many related articles, because there definitely isnt 'MANY' philosophers agreeing that the 'theory is valid'. The thing that matters most in this different is that TESCREAL is recent, but that doesnt annul the 30-something sources confirming its notability. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that is how religious studies work. If someone claims: 1) that a new religion or cult (TESCREAL) exists, meaning it has followers who follow specific tenets; 2) that this new religion has many adherents in a certain industry; and 3) that specific powerful people are believers; and maybe also 4) that it CAUSALLY motivates them to do nefarious/bad-for-humankind things; than for mainstream scholars to accept this theory the person(s) claiming this needs proof to convince mainstream scholars. That has not happened here. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But who is talking about a 'cult' exactly? I dont think that Torres and Gebru, neither the sources used in this article, seriously insists in attributing a cultist behavior, that is not essential at all. Secular religion is concept of substantially different meaning when compared to simple religion.

If you want transhumanism-religion implications, you sure can find an incredible wealth of research. Neither of this is important for this article anyway. The article is not based on this at all. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism"

This approaches WP:POINT but let's have a separate AfD after this one, ok? Jruderman (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not WP:POINT because this is not a rule after all, just a particular interpretation of what it means to have academic notability. It doesnt apply here and wont apply there. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in agreement with Avatar317 explanation. Historyexpert2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pause discussion?~~ I want to see what Torres says here and on Twitter over the next few days. Jruderman (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why would twitter matter? wait did torres spread awareness about this afd? is torres a wikipedia editor? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lowkey, rereading these questions, they sound rhetorical and sarcastic. I did not mean that, actually was curious.

I've been in a situation where the subject of an article has posted about their AfD, I dont think i saw torres or gebru post about AfD, but if they did, we can use {{Not a ballot}} template to inform voters about the policy and to help inform closer that AfD was unnecessarily publicized. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their Twitter might matter as an appropriate primary source and as a hint of what the future may bring for the term "TESCREAL". It doesn't have to be Twitter, or only Twitter 🙂 — Jruderman (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLOSEAFD has info about withdrawing an afd tho apparently it only works if all voters are keep? i think merge votes prevents that? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not looking to withdraw the AfD at this time. More like recuse myself. Thanks, though: you're helping me clarify my stance. Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty slippery slope. Also, bringing in Twitter here should be grounds for withdrawal alone here. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think coi means editors dont have access to the processes including afd, as long as they disclose coi should be fine?

withdrawal apparently only works if everyone voted keep so far.?

i have no clue about twitter, but im of understanding it cant help determine notability or content of article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting at elements of Wikipedia:Canvassing, not at COI. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jruderman: Can you elaborate on what you mean here, and also perhaps about the "new COI" that led you to modify your nomination? It gives the impression that something is happening off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, GW. I am trying to negotiate a compromise with Torres that might include their support for deletion of the TESCREAL article.

Please treat my new stance in this AfD as "procedurally neutral". Please take into account my initial opening arguments only to the extent that the arguments speak to you.

— Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jruderman: An attempt to "negotiate a compromise" with Torres regarding this article is baffling to me, given that Torres did not write this article (nor do they edit Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware). While some weight is given to the opinion of an article subject in deletion discussions regarding BLPs about them (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), I don't see how their opinion on this article would be relevant at all, or why anyone should be attempting to "negotiate a compromise". What would Torres even be compromising on? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm avoiding sharing details at this time. Sorry. Continue the deletion discussion if you want. Jruderman (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dedaub LTD

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NCORP. All sources I could find are trivial mentions. C F A 💬 22:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Technology. C F A 💬 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Malta. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see the page's history, initially the page had few references. But, some editor came and added too many references and moved the page. The references are actually not spamy. But, later an admin has removed about 10 references with an opinion of ineligible references. Assuming the admin is right, the subject has no more mentions in other reliable references. So, it does not pass the notability requirement Bauyosad (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources in the article are not about the company - some merely namecheck one of the founders (e.g. the ACM conference in which Smaragdakis was a co-chair). The only source I see substantially about the company (and which is also in the article) is the Times of Malta. Search does not provide anything more. Lamona (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Huffaker

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

Per article, Director of UX Research for Google, but no further claims of notability. Two sources are linked from the article, the first appears to be a small interview in a highly specialized publication, the second is a personal blog of one of Huffaker's colleagues. His Google scholar profile indicates one paper with 1,000+ citations and a handful around 500, not sure I would classify this as highly influential. Can't find many other sources while doing WP:BEFORE. Doesn't seem to be notable by WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, or WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Computing. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This person's publications seem to be in the realm of sociology, and I'm thinking this is not a high citation field - would like to hear other's views on that. The article is a stub that does not really focus on their academic impact - it needs fleshing out in that regard if it's to stay. Qflib (talk)

Digiboxx

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

Lack of reliable sources, notability and media coverage. BoraVoro (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article with some sources talk about launches and COO appointment and others are for paid promotions and advertisement. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ntractive

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

No establishment of notability Amigao (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page had been overwritten by an IP contributor to talk about an entirely different company. I have since reverted all edits since that point. @Amigao, not sure if you want to take a look at the restored article for whether that meets notability standards or not. Ham tech person 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even before the hijacking, most sources are press releases. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Datacube Inc.

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

Article has very little references, and not much information about the company can be found on Google search. AKK700 02:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like WP:PROMO, could not verify the sources used and little information on Google Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found significant coverage about the company in EDN, Electronic Engineering Times, Vision Systems Design, Electronics, and more. Currently trying to cite the article while culling all the plucky original research. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Found even more non-routine, independent feature coverage in some trades and books. Every sentence has now been cited and almost all of the cruft has been culled. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:

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

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P-GRADE Portal

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

The article lacks of WP:GNG, since it is a project of cloud infrastructure in grid computing with little overall impact and very few available sources, mostly self-published sources of the authors of this project. It seems there are a few other project-related articles that are related to the Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences that seem to lack considerably WP:GNG as well. Recently, other related articles have been already deleted: [12] and [13]. The targetted articles, like this nomination, GUSE, and the deleted article of MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems, were all created by the same user many years ago. Chiserc (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp×g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The iX article is fine, but the ACM paper (An LLVM backend for GHC) only mentions Pure in a list of other languages that use LLVM (Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler.), and the LAC2009 paper (Signal Processing in the Pure Programming Language) is by Albert Gräf so it's not independent. Looking at other citations of Gräf's papers, I couldn't find any that discussed Pure in depth - it's sometimes mentioned as an example of a term-rewriting language but only in passing. It was a nice design and somewhat unusual when it came out, but I don't think it meets GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rewriting - I think the best outcome here is probably one or two sentences on the language in a new paragraph inserted under Rewriting#Term rewriting systems#Use in programming languages. I agree with Adam Sampson's assessment of the sources, and it seems like there's been almost no uptake of the language in either academia or industry in the last 10 years (which would make me want to ignore the lack of WP:SIGCOV). I do think this should likely exist as a redirect, and I'm not confident my proposal is the best; there's some argument for expanding its discussion on LLVM or for including a sentence in Pattern matching instead. Happy to keep instead if there are sources I missed. Suriname0 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for Suriname0's proposal? Any better redirect targets? In cases of marginal sourcing, an ATD can be the best approach.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]