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

Katana (photocopier)

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

Article was created in 2006 and later back-sourced to a press release about printers from 2009 (archive) which does not even mention the word "Katana". I can find no evidence these printers (or any Ricoh products) were ever referred to by that name. Closest thing is a paper on Ricoh's "Japanese sword digital archiving system", but that's from 2014. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Project

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

Fails the notability guideline for web content. All of the current sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources like blog posts. A quick search for more sourcing didn't turn up anything. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Computing, and Internet. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Public Radio

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

Contested prod without improvement. See page's talkpage for rationale. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Move to Draftspace - This is a fairly well-written page, but the sourcing is not strong enough or well-utilized enough. If works wants to continue on it, I could argue for moving it over to being a draft, although the fact that PROD was disputed without improvement makes this likely a failing idea. PickleG13 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have draftified it, but it wasn't eligible for draftification, except through the AfD process. I would have no problem with sending it to draft, as long as the editor agrees to put it through the AfC review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteboard Pattern

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

This article has several issues. While they could be fixed in isolation, it might be easier to start from scratch:

May not meet notability guidelines (tag added in 2018)
Orphan
Not written as per Wikipedia style (e.g., has external links within the text, references within titles)
Has grammar issues
Hard to understand
May need more references
Some of the statements may not be accurate (e.g., "The Listener Pattern is typically known as Observer Pattern. It is a Behavioral Pattern (aka Publish-Subscribe)," --> it is not correct that behavorial pattern is "also known as pub-sub") 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Slight merge to open source is possible, but this page should not remain as-is due to a general lack of any notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in Google Books, and reviewing past discussions, it seems there is some coverage in reliable sources ([1][2][3]), but all of it seems to be passing mentions. I would favor a redirect/merge to Open-source license or any other appropriate target. MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chavez

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

Delete. This article was created by a paid editor (User:CJ for superset) and later defended by another paid editor (User:Lauren at L Strategies), who disclosed being compensated by Laurel Strategies to represent Tom Chavez (see disclosure).

The article fails WP:GNG — there is no significant, in-depth, independent coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. References such as TechCrunch and Business Insider are not independent coverage but rather pay-to-play or brief startup mentions that fail to demonstrate notability. There are no profiles, features, or critical discussions of the subject that meet Wikipedia’s standards.

This article has seen no neutral editorial participation and reads like a press release. The promotional tone and sourcing violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO, and the COI history undermines the integrity of the content. Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, California, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a mess of paid-editor churnalism. Obvious WP:PROMO material. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the article was created as a draft and published to mainspace after review by an apparently neutral editor.

The "defence" complained of consists solely of removing the nom's PROD template—an acceptable action, CoI having been previously declared.

I have just outlined in depth in response to the nom's WP:COIN ticket on this article why "the COI history undermines the integrity of the content" is badly over-egging the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy. I raised the COI point only because all substantive text was written by the paid drafter, with only cosmetic tweaks since, and the PROD tag was removed by another COI editor. I wanted to deter a Delete discussion dominated solely by COI arguments so the wider community can decide.

Putting COI aside, the sourcing remains thin: one 2001 Los Angeles Times feature that profiles the Chavez family rather than Tom specifically, plus routine deal coverage in TechCrunch, Business Insider, a brief WSJ item, and several self-published or op-ed pieces. There is no in-depth, independent coverage of Chavez himself, so the article does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is designed to "deter a Delete discussion dominated solely by COI arguments", what would your attempt to ensure one look like? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I find that is a reliable source and independent and significantly about him is the SF Examiner article, and that is not enough for GNG. I see mentions, some nice articles about his parents, and reporting on companies that his companies funded. He is undoubtedly successful but the sourcing just isn't there. I will keep an eye on this in case someone finds better sources. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks everyone for weighing in here. As mentioned above by Pigsonthewing, the subject was deemed notable and published by a neutral editor, Megalibrarygirl, after review. This was published after the article was created as well, and I believe it would be considered in-depth coverage. Lastly, I'll point out that this nomination curiously appears to have come from a WP:SPA; as a disclosed COI editor myself, I hope we are all operating in good faith. Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Fastcompany article, and although it is long it is more anecdotal than informational, more informal than analytical. I'm confident it could be used to support certain facts, but it is low on detail. His entire career from 1998 to 2016 is covered in a single paragraph, one sentence per startup, with statements so vague I have no idea what their business really was. I also want to mention that sources 7, 8, & 9 are not independent, and better sources are needed for their content. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computaris

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

Non-notable company that doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Spattering of news items were about its acquisition, and nothing else of any lasting importance. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's also a COI issue, many of the edits were made by the company itself. Which is blatant advertising. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke (warez)

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG, appears to be largely original research and can be succinctly explained in the warez article without the extensive technical detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, Crime, Entertainment, Computing, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warez scene as an WP:ATD-R - It seems like the relevant content is already there without the need to merge content. The rest of what is in this article is more of a how-to or example list (or even unrelated content relevant to releases, but not necessarily nuking, from what I gather reading this). -2pou (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warez scene, which discusses the concept already. There's some coverage in reliable sources, but possibly not enough for a standalone article. MarioGom (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Green (entrepreneur)

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

No sigcov in the article or after a Google search. It doesn't seem like this guy or his blockchain company meet GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG as subject has received substantial coverage specifically in Korean and Chinese language multiple reliable media sources, TV programs, etc. Those newspapers coverage goes well beyond routine business appointments. Also his role as CEO of io.net also adds to the notability. He also worked on top positions for big firms (Disney, Oaktree Capital, Merrill Lynch) and the not all sources were added.--Mozzcircuit (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited from being CEO of a company or being an executive at other companies. If there are reliable sources like newspapers, it would help to share them here. I couldn't find them by searching and they aren't in the article, so no one here can assess them. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG thanks to multiple independent reliable sources available and added. The Subject is CEO of a notable tech company with substantial media coverage.--Slarticlos (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share some of these sources or add them to the article to help improve it? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the GNG. I've gone through all the sources in the article and summarized my results in the table below. Toadspike [Talk] 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[4]	Obviously promotional tone			✘ No
[5]	Interview			✘ No
[6]		Written by an "independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program"		✘ No
[7]	Seems to be based entirely on a company press release.			✘ No
[8]		No byline	~ One paragraph on Green, probably not sigcov.	? Unknown
[9]			No information on Green beyond the fact that he was appointed.	✘ No
[10]	An opinion piece written by Green himself.		Doesn't contain any info about Green.	✘ No
[11]			Just some quotes from Green, no indep. sigcov.	✘ No
[12]			Less than a sentence is about Green.	✘ No
[13]	Clearly a recycled press release.	No byline.		✘ No
[14]			No sigcov of Green, simply says that he was appointed and includes a quote from him.	✘ No
[15]			Doesn't say much beyond that Green was appointed CEO.	✘ No
[16]		Seems to be a wire report based entirely on press releases; strongly promotional tone.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@Mozzcircuit, you say "not all sources were added". Do you have further sources beyond what I reviewed above? Toadspike [Talk] 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]