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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing.

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[edit]

Cloudreach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2A02:6B6B:16C:0:D8BF:FBCC:5819:FF15 proposed deletion with the rationale:

Reads like promotional material or like the About page of the company. Probably conflict of interest. No substance.

However, since Cloudreach was discussed at AfD before, PROD cannot be used. I have converted this to an AfD for them. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was previously deleted and for good reasons. Most reliable sources are not about the company but about bigger companies who bought the business, and even those are flimsy and don't justify an article about this. Additionally the company website doesn't even exist anymore which is another reason to think this doesn't pass WP:N. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, United States of America, and Utah. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facility information model[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as I could not find any coverage in secondary sources at all Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Building information modeling. While there are some sources for facility information model, it is a part of building information modeling as in "divide BIM into four models, Program information model (PIM), Design information model (DIM), construction information model (CIM) and facility information model (FIM)". StarryGrandma (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma Thanks for proposing this alternative! I would be ok with it . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect support - plenty of secondary sources come up on a quick Google Books search, but it seems to be a relatively niche technical tool more useful in an article with greater context. Some of the info on related systems/programs could also probably be merged into Facilities management easily as well, if someone so chooses. originalmess^talk 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Testing Framework[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this article in no relation to test automation frameworks, to which I would say there is more GNG than what is presented in this? Conyo14 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has one ref from a conference paper by author. Passing mentions in conference papers and low-quality publications. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: created by a long-blocked editor with a history of mass-generation of insignificant stubs. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUnit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Long[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Subject is not notable and the article is purely written for promotion (it even reads like a personal resume). Also, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite as the musician in these sources: 1, 2, and this Google search. The present target of the article is hardly covered in any sources I've found except possibly in some books. He has certainly written or been involved in some books which might pass WP:Author. I am conflicted but hedge to delete (for now: he may yet achieve a greater notability but WP:NOTCRYSTAL). — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Agcaoili[edit]

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

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in computer science[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cribl[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language[edit]

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

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.

~~Weak delete~~ per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:

There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([5], [6], [7] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.

I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.

Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP: N. This page has a pretty unfortunate history with AfDs, but the issue of sourcing still remains. The papers that discuss the language in depth are primary, and its citations are brief mentions of the language itself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what has changed from the last three (!) AfDs, and the sources (of which there are nine) look okay to me. jp×g 🗯️ 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the AfD rationale, which points out that the sources are either primary or not in-depth? The previous AfDs discussed citation counts and number of hits on Google, which are not valid rationales for keeping an article. Similarly, the number of sources an article has doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Looking at the citations of the most cited paper, there is independent sigcov such as [8] and [9]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "independent sigcov" was authored by the same people who wrote the "most cited paper" that you're referring to. Those sources are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put a wrong link for [1], apologies. I meant to put [10]. [2] is still independent. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] was written by Brunekreef, who also was an author on the original paper proposing the language. It is a primary source. [3] is a very short paragraph in the related work section of a paper that doesn't actually build on top of Alma-0. It is not significant coverage. None of the sources you provided can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, weirdly the article lists him as Brunekree while the paper calls him Brunekeef. Interesting how a single letter can create such a large visual difference.
As long as something isn't trivial mention, it's significant coverage. The RAPID paper presents an entire paragraph of details to compare with RAPID built on top of them. You also still have the other results that cited the ALMA paper. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claimed threshold for significance is arbitrarily low and self-serving. It needs to discuss the subject directly and in detail, and this source does neither. The "entire paragraph" you claim establishes notability discusses the subject in relation to another language (i.e. not directly) and is only a few sentences in a 13-page paper that discusses something else entirely (i.e. not in detail). You've also done nothing to show that the other results can establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses it directly and in detail. In the context of something else means that it's another topic, not that it's not directly. In fact, SIGCOV directly says that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just that it's "a few sentences" does not mean these sentences don't have detail. All normal paragraphs have just a few sentences (in this case, 6). The paragraph details Alma-0's semantics, nature, and statements.

Other sources include [11] which talks about how Alma-0 is "pure dynamic predicate logic". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand that it needs not be the primary subject of the article, but I still don't believe this discusses the subject directly. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Alma-0 is... Alma-0 uses dynamics in this way..." instead of "Apt made a language called Alma-0. Apt then got married." or "Dynamic languages include Alpha-G0, Alma-0, Aleph-0...", ergo it is direct.

I also don't think you can dispute [4]. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add those sources to the article? HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a problem with adding [4] because it has a ton of technical maths language I don't understand. The other one maybe. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought forth two sources that you failed to realize weren't secondary, a source that only meets your arbitrary standard of notability, and a source that you admitted you don't understand. I don't think there's much more of a discussion to be had here. If these are the best sources you could find, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does me not understanding what [4] is saying have any bearing on it counting towards notability or not? We have a ton of technical topics, and they all meet notability. As far as I'm concerned, [3] only fails your arbitrary standard of directness notability. As long as something does not require OR to extract information and addresses the subject directly and in detail, it counts for SIGCOV. Just that a notable thing is niche doesn't mean we should not include it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly explain why a source establishes notability if you don't understand it, and the onus is on you to show that a source can establish notability. Anything else is a massive waste of time for people who nominate articles for deletion. I've also made clear arguments based on the text of the definition of notability that [3] does not provide significant coverage -- there is no arbitrariness here. Again, what is there that's left to discuss? HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your argument that bringing Alma-0 up for acknowledgement of inspiration isn't direct? Have you responded to #c-Aaron_Liu-20240531174600-HyperAccelerated-20240531171800, which shows how it is not just WP:TRIVIAL? Further, how would it be productive to delete this article? Have you seen the reasons the notability guideline exist? How does any of this impede us from having enough content to write articles if we get someone who understands formal computer science? I understand that the sources address the subject directly and in detail, and that is enough.
@JPxG, would you like to comment? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have sourcing guidelines, and this article cannot meet those standards, specifically WP: NSOFT. One paragraph in one paper cannot establish notability and you haven't actually shown that the source that you don't understand establishes notability in any of the eight messages you've written. The sourcing concern still remains, so this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like what HA's asking for here is fairly extreme: the sources can't just talk about the programming language, they have to talk exclusively about the programming language, they have to do so in a way that's accessible to laymen, et cetera. I don't think we need to have whole textbooks written about a programming language for it to pass GNG.

It's worth noting that the original papers specifying the language are published in journals, which is not just some guy's random website -- it's an editorial process where multiple people signed off on this language being worthy of note and constituting a contribution to the field.

Overall, it just doesn't really seem to me like there's a reason to delete the article -- the guidelines are not normally interpreted in such a severe way -- and there's not a compelling reason to go out of our way to interpret them more severely here (there's no BLP issues, for example, and we're not getting paid cash bonuses based on how many AfDs close as delete). jp×g 🗯️ 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources per WP: NSOFT. That could be a paper discussing extensions of Alma-0 by independent researchers or a book chapter about programming languages. One paragraph in one article does not meet that bar, and neither does an article, regardless of its length, that nobody here understands. The authority of these sources isn't under question. If this protracted discussion results in the improvement of the article, I am more than happy to withdraw this AfD. However, I have yet to see evidence of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see an argument for why us being too unintelligent to understand the paper's maths discounts it from notability. NSOFT does not have any mention of that and I don't think anyone can disagree that it's direct and in detail. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [12] summarized it as "how dynamic predicate logic provides an adequate semantics for a non-trivial fragment of Alma-0, and how inference tools for dynamic predicate logic become verification tools for the hybrid programming language". Might be helpful in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XML appliance[edit]

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

Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Shellwood: Please read WP:BEFORE. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [13], [14], [15]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't in the article; you don't know if they're reliable. I'd recheck the sources because the 2nd one in your message links to a 200+ PDF document that doesn't directly explain what XML appliance is about. GoodHue291 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, sorry. Meant to ping @GoodHue291: ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find a half page article in Networked World. Beyond that I find mentions, particularly in IBM publications, as they appear to have purchased the technology and incorporated it into their software. Those publications, however, do not explain what it is or how it works (the proverbial "black box"), only that it provides accelerated processing of XML data. Lamona (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a weird one. XML was a... bit of a fad back in the day, so there are almost certainly a large volume of sources, complicated by the fact that they would be hard to search, even the online indexed ones, and I would expect a substantial portion to not necessarily be indexed (for example, I don't think Morrison, Scott (2007). "XML appliances simplify SOA". Communications News. Vol. 44, no. 4. Nelson Publishing. p. 24. is). We do have books from the vendors, of course (I think Hines, Bill; Rasmussen, John; Ryan, Jaime; Kapadia, Simon; Brennan, Jim (2008). Hines, Bill (ed.). IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA appliance handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press Pearson plc. pp. 6–13. ISBN 978-0-13-714819-6. might be slightly better than the other IBM book at treating the subject more generally) but again, not all of them would be indexed. This Australian Department of Defence report has some coverage, but might be more useful for a list than a prose article: Indrakanti, Sarath (October 2012). Service Oriented Architecture Security Risks and their Mitigation (PDF) (Report). DSTO.. I'd rather have a bit more time before we make a conclusion one way or another. (Also, I found a first-party url to the Network World article above, which might be slightly less annoying than google books: Gaitonde, Sunil (8 December 2003). "XML appliances speed Web services". Network World. Vol. 20, no. 49. IDG Network World. p. 41. ISSN 0887-7661.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[16][17]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [18], [19], [20]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurrealDB[edit]

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

An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vili talk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.

However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vili talk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.

Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [21] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:

ORGCRIT assess table

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material	– Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no	Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV	Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail	First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions	Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Literally a press release		Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		Leaning no
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs.	Short circuit	Blogs aren't considered RS	At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement	Same as above
Citations to their own website
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Interview with no secondary content
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	probably not, but not assessed	No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19. (Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)		Dubious	... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	This is a press release
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17.		...
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19.	Sponsored	Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9.		At least this one is an RS
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken).	– Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here	Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick	– Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here	3.2 is fine	—
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?".		Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6.			Passing mention

I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 Could you please add https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb to your assessment, I will be adding this to the article Mr Vili talk 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?

Sources like [22] [23] Mr Vili talk 04:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vili talk 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is leaning on the side of deletion, I would prefer this page to be Draftified, as I expect this article to eventually become notable after the SurrealDB commercial launch, which should generate some more reliable and significant coverage Mr Vili talk 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Alpha3031's assessment of the sources identified for this subject. That we're even considering this, an "official government organization of the Government of Lumina" ([24]), as a reliable source is a rather damning sign of non-notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol what a joke Freedun (yippity yap) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS[edit]

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices, A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories, Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level, DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage, TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion, and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]