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

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]

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]

Winxvideo AI

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

All of the sources are promotional. 🄻 🄰 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, Computing, Software, and California. 🄻 🄰 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Software promo, I can't find a single article in a reputable source that isn't simply a press release or sponsored article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather obviously created by an editor with a close/paid relationship with the company. Brandon (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Axim

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has barely any citations and is rich in detail that I don't believe can be substantiated by secondary sources. Additionally, the product has been defunct for nearly 20 years and doesn't seem to have left a lasting cultural footprint. I would recommend deleting with a redirect to the Dell Technologies article. Please note that I'm a Dell employee with a COI, so my opinion shouldn't be a determining factor. I'll leave developing consensus up to independent editors. Thanks! JM with Dell Technologies (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (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/2025 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are links to some reviews in the External links section. Seems to be quite popular line in its time - judging how easy was to find some reviews/news:
- PC Mag, 5 August 2003, p. 33 - 1/4 page First Looks
- PC Mag, 25 November 2003, p. 38 - 1/3 page First Looks
- Maximum PC, September 2004, p. 76 - full page review (X30)
- PC Mag, January 2005, p. 36 - 1/2 page First Looks
- PC Mag, 22 November 2005, p. 48 - 1/4 page First Looks

The nominator is right that the article is in a bad shape with only few references and too much unreferenced content. From my POV, the article subject is notable, but my computer time is limited, so I'm unable to improve it much (well I may provide some references on the talk page for others to use). Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references available, historical interest. Dujo (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Database seeding

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

A dictionary definition, as far as I can tell. No footnotes, only one of the external links seems relevant but describes "data seeding" instead of "database seeding". Mostly example code with no context given, no explanation of the technique or its purpose or applications; or its development or relevance. Certainly, no expressed claim to notability. mikeblas (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's certainly 'a thing', but I can't see any possible claim to notability, or anything that could really be said about seeding beyond the dictionary definition. At the very most it might merit a sentence in an article like database as one of the possible steps involved in set up. MCE89 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to database. The issue with this article is that it is essentially a bunch of code snippets with little explanation. Since Wikipedia is not a site for hosting documentation, the presence of this article is inappropriate. I did find a couple books that describe what database seeding is and how to implement one. However, these books discuss database seeding through code snippets rather than e.g. a discussion of the history of database seeding. There is source material we could use, but I don’t believe that it’s enough to expand beyond the article beyond a WP: DICTDEF and a bunch of questionably relevant code. I think this AtD gives this concept some deserved presence on the encyclopedia, but I generally agree that this standalone article should not continue to exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Information Processing Society of China

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

Looks to be almost entirely self-promotional in nature. Amigao (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Computing, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to eliminate or reduce the tone. Ctxz2323 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Qian, Duoxiu (2023) [2014]. "Translation Technology in China". In Chan, Sin-wai (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 308. ISBN 978-0-367-76736-5. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "There are many active participants in the research and development of machine translation (MT) and CAT. One leading organization is the Chinese Information Processing Society of China (CIPSC; www.cipsc.org.cn/index.php). It was established in June 1981, its mission being to develop methods for processing Chinese with the aid of computer technology, including automatic input, output, recognition, transfer, compression, storage, concordance, analysis, comprehension, and generation. This is to be done at different linguistic levels (character, lexical, phrasal, sentential, and textual). The field has developed into an interdisciplinary subject area in a very robust way with collaborative work by scholars from fields like philology, computer sciences, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and mathematics. This organization has been in close contact with the outside world, playing a very active role in the world MT-Summits."
2. Yan, Yiming 颜逸明; Yin, Binyong 尹斌庸 (2002). 语文现代化论文集 [Collection of Papers on the Modernization of Chinese Language] (in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-7-100-03535-4. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1981 年,以钱伟长为理事长的中国中文信息学会成立。中文信息学会及所属的汉字编码专业委员会、《中文信息学报》《中文信息》等杂志成为组织交流汉字编码的理论的场所和媒介。1981 年至今中文信息学会、汉字编码委员会召开国际性、全国性学术会议 10 余次,发表的国内外论文和公布编码方案约在 1000 份以上,申请专利超过 200 件,上机运行的也有近百种。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1981, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China, chaired by Qian Weichang, was established. The Chinese Information Processing Society of China, along with its affiliated Character Encoding Committee, the Chinese Journal of Information and Chinese Information magazines, became venues and mediums for organizing and exchanging theories on Chinese character encoding. From 1981 to the present, the Chinese Information Processing Society and the Character Encoding Committee have held more than 10 international and national academic conferences, published over 1,000 domestic and international papers, and released encoding schemes. More than 200 patents have been applied for, and nearly 100 encoding systems have been implemented in machines."
3. Zhang, Pu 张普 (1992). 汉语信息处理研究 [Research on Chinese Language Information Processing] (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-7-5619-0211-0. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1981 年,正式成立了中国中文信息学会,推举钱伟长教授为第一任理事长,学会下专设了一个“汉字编码专业委员会” ,专攻汉字键盘输入技术。 1983 年,中国中文信息学会与联合国教科文组织在北京联合召开“中文信息处理国际研讨会” ,仅在会议同时举办的“计算机中文信息处理展览会”上,就展出了 15 个省市 34 个单位的 38 项成果,展期销售成交额 1078 万元。这个成绩不只受到联合国教科文组织欧沃拉比先生及国内外观众的赞赏,也使盯着中国这一庞大市场的国外各大计算机公司大吃一惊,他们没想到中国的步子迈得这么快、"
  From Google Translate: "In 1981, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China was formally established, and Professor Qian Weichang was elected as the first chairman. The society set up a "Chinese Character Encoding Professional Committee" to specialize in Chinese character keyboard input technology. In 1983, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China and UNESCO jointly held the "International Symposium on Chinese Information Processing" in Beijing. At the "Computer Chinese Information Processing Exhibition" held at the same time as the conference, 38 achievements from 34 units in 15 provinces and cities were exhibited, and the sales turnover during the exhibition period was 10.78 million yuan. This achievement was not only praised by Mr. Owolabi of UNESCO and domestic and foreign audiences, but also surprised major foreign computer companies that were eyeing the huge Chinese market. They did not expect China to move so fast,"
4. Liang, Qinghai 梁清海; Man, Hing-wu 文兴吾; Lam, Tsz-hing 林子卿 (1992). 当代中国科学技术总览 [Overview of Contemporary Chinese Science and Technology] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Science and Technology Press [zh]. p. 319. ISBN 978-7-5046-0862-8. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1981 年 6 月成立。由钱伟长、中国中文信息学会甄建民、安其春、李金铠等人发起。宗旨是:团结广大科技工作者,繁荣发展我国科学技术事业,促进科学技术的普及和推广,促进科技领域出成果、出人才;为振兴经济,促进两个文明建设,加速实现我国社会主义现代化做贡献。该会设有土地利用、地籍管理、土地复垦、土地经济、建设用地、土地信息与遥感、土地法学等专业学术组织。出版刊物《中国土地科学》。 1988 年以来,先后与香港测量师学会、英国皇家特许测量师学会、国际测量师联合会、香港房地产建筑业协进会筹建立了联系。该会隶属中国科学技术协会,挂靠国家土地管理局;会址:北京市海淀区大柳树北村 25 号;邮政编码: 100081 。"
  From Google Translate: "Founded in June 1981. Initiated by Qian Weichang, Zhen Jianmin, An Qichun, Li Jinkai and others from the Chinese Information Processing Society of China. Its purpose is to unite the vast number of scientific and technological workers, prosper and develop my country's science and technology, promote the popularization and promotion of science and technology, promote the production of scientific and technological achievements and talents; to contribute to the revitalization of the economy, the promotion of the construction of two civilizations, and the acceleration of the realization of my country's socialist modernization. The association has professional academic organizations such as land use, cadastral management, land reclamation, land economy, construction land, land information and remote sensing, and land law. It publishes the journal "Chinese Land Science". Since 1988, it has established contacts with the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the International Federation of Surveyors, and the Hong Kong Real Estate and Construction Industry Association. The association is affiliated to the China Association for Science and Technology and is affiliated to the State Land Administration; the address is No. 25, Daliushu North Village, Haidian District, Beijing; the postal code is 100081."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Chinese Information Processing Society of China (simplified Chinese: 中国中文信息学会; traditional Chinese: 中國中文資訊學; pinyin: Zhōngguó Zhōngwén Xìnxī Xuéhuì) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Purposes and activities" section is sourced to the the subject's website and could be considered to contain promotional wording. I consider the rest of the article to be largely neutral. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding.

Different sources and citations have been added, with the content edited accordingly. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references presented are good. - The9Man ^Talk 07:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt Johannes Hofer

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

Non-notable person. None of the sources are reliable (tiiny.site is user-generated), and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and Germany. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Benni; doesn't this qualify for some speedy deletion criterion? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG, could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Needs sources that are reliable and independent. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - cross wiki promo spam by globally locked sock farm see file here. Many times placed via the "name game" also on this language version as Benedikt Hofer, Draft:Gaming_Benni, Gaming Benni and Coden mit Benni. This sock even created a fake ai-generated user page with nonsense. Hoyanova (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SenzMate

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on an IT firm, which was soft-deleted a couple of months ago and then WP:REFUNDed on request of a new WP:SPA. I agree with Alpha3031's previous nomination rationale regarding the article references. Aside from the given sources, there is an Economy Next interview about the founders' AI aspirations "SenzMate: Enabling A Global AI-IoT revolution from out of Sri Lanka", 22 August 2022), which is effectively a primary piece insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, marked by local awards, but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. A smattering of industry awards isn't out of the ordinary for any business. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish the notability of this subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georg C. F. Greve

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

Tagged for notability for over 4 years, seems to have been (self?) created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article entirely lacks secondary sources. If there is any notability here, it would appear to be exclusively around the subject's involvement in FSFE and a separate article is not warranted. Brandon (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SLUBStick

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

No indication of notability. Could be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even know where this article could be merged. Linux kernel#Security does not seem like a good fit and there does not appear to be a Security of the Linux Kernel themed article. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant vulnerability that will very likely see further developments in the future.
That's a pretty bold claim. If this technique was being received as significant I'd expect to see _some_ response that just never materialized. The references are all just repackaging the researcher's press briefing. Is there any material from the Linux community, vendors or other academics? I was unable to find any. Brandon (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [1] or [2] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [3] Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say how prestigious or rigorus the conference is. FWIW, the paper has never been cited (Google Scholar: [4]) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here [5], which Oaktree b also found, and here [6]. I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail". If sections of a paper are about the topic, then it's more than just a trivial mention. Per the definition of WP:SIGCOV, the sources mentioned clearly pass by addressing the topic in significant detail. The only question is whether the sources should be considered as reliable. I do think it's fair to question the reliability of an academic conference and the proceedings published by it. However, if the academic conference is legitimate and peer-reviewed with acceptable academic standards, then these sources should be accepted as reliable sources verifying the notability of the article. For a niche subject matter like automation in the mining industry, one should not expect as much citations compared to a more prominent subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Contents

Computing

Falken (bulletin board system)

Vivo X30

Winxvideo AI

Dell Axim

Database seeding

Chinese Information Processing Society of China

Benedikt Johannes Hofer

SenzMate

Georg C. F. Greve

SLUBStick

IREDES

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.