Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Points of interest related to Computing on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing/archive

TRENDnet (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)

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

• 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 . Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

Software entropy (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 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• !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)

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

Avaya Secure Router 4134 (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)

Sources seem linked to manufacturer, unclear if it meets notability requirements. Rcfische2 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Rcfische2 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Suppose I should cite a policy somewhere. This fails WP:PRODUCT notability guidelines. Rcfische2 (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, okay with redirect to Avaya. No evidence this specific product is notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: There should not be a redirect, this is a product that fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria and I don't see any reason for it to be redirected to the parent organization. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place

Cloud engineering (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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Falken (bulletin board system) (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)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

Vivo X30 (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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

IREDES (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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals or were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  This as well is about the "thing" Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

• Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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

• Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC))

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)

• Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here , which Oaktree b also found, and here . 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)

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)

From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address 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)

I can't access the first source, but the second source gives only half a page to the topic. How much is in the first source? Wizmut (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here as there is a fundamental difference of opinion on some sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)