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

Where (SQL)

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

This content doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it violates multiple Wikipedia policies. I think it'd be plainly inappropriate to have separate articles for each keyword in a programming language, because this would violate WP: INDISCRIMINATE. It's not clear to me why SQL should be treated any differently. Also, anything encyclopedic about the subject probably already appears in Filter (higher-order function): a WHERE clause filters rows on a certain condition. Anything specific to SQL, like how to use it in a query, would likely violate WP: NOTTEXTBOOK, which this article currently does. I think that the article on the aforementioned filter function may make a good redirect target if people would prefer a WP: ATD, and anything that people deem "useful" can go somewhere else like Wikibooks. In any case, I don't believe hosting this content on Wikipedia is appropriate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, I think there probably exists a healthy amount of sources that describe what the WHERE clause does. My concerns have less to do with inadequate sourcing and more to do with whether this material is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDICT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a WP: DICTIONARY. This article was deleted in 2007 but recreated for reasons that aren't clear to me. I don't believe this article can be expanded beyond the definition of the ideographs based on a search for sources, and even if it can, I don't believe the hosting of these massive tables is appropriate for an encyclopedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although it's a technical article, the information about the proposals and history of this Unicode block round it out to be a complete article. DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible rationale. I never said this was an “incomplete” article. None of this is responsive to anything I said above. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood "I don't believe this article can be expanded ..." to be a criticism of the completeness of the article. I remain opposed as it's part of a complete set of Category:Unicode blocks. Probably another horrible rationale on my part. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer von Hassel

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a pretty clear example of WP:BLP1E. The sources all say the same thing with very little variation in the information they provide, and several of them are clearly re-hashed versions of the same report or press release. None of the sources says anything about von Hassel himself, which is very natural as he was 5 years old at the time, but a WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield anything more current, or more in-depth. I thought this might be a good source, since it was published a couple of years later – but it only repeats the same info in new packaging (adding the dubious claim that he "has his own Wikipedia page"). Other than that, there's just the flurry of short press reports from April 2014 to support this entire article. The "world's youngest hacker" claim was clearly unverifiable and pretty weak to begin with, since it redefines what a "hacker" is – so what is the claim to notability here, really? bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E without any WP:LASTING coverage. Jfire (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. A fun little story that surely helps websites get clicks, but absolutely not enough to support a BLP article on the person in the story. Not opposed to a brief mention somewhere in an Xbox article where it could make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDnet

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

Nominating for deletion for failing to meet WP:NCORP; and passing mentions media coverage Villkomoses (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of tech reviews to be found about their products in RS. The one source in the article about the FTC enforcement helps, as does this one [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Verge (cite) and CNET (cite) provide significant coverage. I suspect that a proper WP: BEFORE was not conducted before this nomination was made. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Software entropy

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

I WP:BLARd this to software rot about a year ago, but was just reverted. Software entropy (this AFD) seems almost identical to software rot, and software entropy doesn't have much content. Recommend redirecting to software rot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on redirect. I've added a section on software entropy to the software rot article to migrate some of the information as suggested in the revert, but the rest of this article looks to just be OR or less well worded duplicates of information already there. Chaste Krassley (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote My comment was: Concept are close, but content should be properly migrated before deletion. I think link to the Lehman's laws and the "Fixing broken windows" metaphor are also important (in the history). I've added it to the software rot page. Dhmoclex (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per nomination. Software rot and software entropy are conceptually the same thing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to software rot. Same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a very uncommon to non-existent discipline. It has been tagged for notability for many years, and just left. No attempt has been made to keep it current and encyclopedic, the main page cloud computing is far more current and useful. Best to remove, there is no useful information here we should be providing readers. This topic is really part of computer science & engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ligaturama (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloud computing: I agree that this standalone article should not exist, as there is no need to maintain the same information in two separate places. However, a redirect seems like a pretty straightforward WP: ATD to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify while the content is related to Cloud computing from the title alone I first suspected that this would about Cloud seeding. MKFI (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @MKFI that a disambiguation is needed, as I too thought of cloud seeding at first. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falken (bulletin board system)

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish notability. This article was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Falken was not a major player in the BBS scene, but it definitely had its spot. However, this article is a mess that needs to be cleaned up and hopefully sourced better before being published.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies. See WP:DRAFTNO #1. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no - the exact wording as determined in the RfC that added this guideline is as follows: There is a rough consensus that articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. There is a much weaker consensus on the specifics, and that articles created more than 90 days ago are too old should be considered a preliminary rule of thumb subject to additional discussion (see below). In other words, if we decide to draftify here, then it can be done. - That being said, I support draftifying the article if there is a notion that sources may exist. No gain in deleting it if a fixer-upper can be done instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivo X30

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

No shown notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did your WP: BEFORE include a search for sources in Chinese? HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I typically do not search for sources outside of English as I cannot read Chinese and thus cannot assess their notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been little participation and User:TheTechie has been asked a question they should answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]