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

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Perry (computer specialist)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Computing, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith where a brief, sourced mention is likely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Maps

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

The only secondary coverage available is from campus papers, which don't contribute to notability under NORG's heightened audience requirements. Sdkb ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, and Computing. Sdkb ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrionix

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

Fails WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I previously tagged this for notability, and can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references lack WP:SIGCOV of the business. Brandon (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Harvey

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet standards of WP:NACADEMIC. Limited references, no significant expansion since last AFD in 2016, could not find more references.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I understand it, the nature of citations is that they are monotone increasing, so that once several qualified editors (Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, Vanamonde93) have opined that the subject passes WP:PROF on citation record, they keep on passing PROF indefinitely unless some sort of mistake in the editors' reasoning can be pointed to? One of the editors in the previous debate, and the only one to engage in detail with the PROF 1a claim, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Deliberately not linking to avoid canvassing. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, as the nominator does not seem minded to withdraw, that's a keep vote, especially given the below comment by David Eppstein, who is certainly qualified to judge Harvey's contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing presented that might change my previous opinion that he passes WP:PROF#C1 by virtue of his highly-cited publications. Note that in the British system, his previous senior lecturer position is a regular-rank research and teaching faculty position somewhere between the US assistant and associate professor levels rather than (as it would be in the US) a teaching-only position. I suspect his current "visiting senior research fellow" position really means "retired but still active in research". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intimately familiar with the US system (and have not yet looked into Harvey at all), but "senior lecturer" in newer research universities (ie founded post-WW2, but not as a polytechnic) that do not use a Reader grade (such as the University of Sussex, I think?), can cover anything between what David Eppstein discusses and one step below department head (ie Reader) and would definitely imply a partly or predominantly research position. (I see our article mentions "principal lecturer" but I don't recall ever seeing that in use.) I agree that "visiting senior research fellow" position is essentially emeritus whatever position the subject held at the time of retirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "highly-cited publications" are mentioned, but only one publication is in the article now and it's been awhile since the first AFD. If there are many of them, where are they and why are they not within the article? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the GS profile. Certainly a few of the highest-cited could be added to the article, but I will defer to David Eppstein as to which are most important. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a matter of cleanup and expansion, that's fine. But it's been eight years since the last AFD. Again, if these are important somehow, why have they not been added during that time? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: if this was the first AfD I would vote Delete as it is a high citation field, with the caveat that a prior editor mentioned "ISAL awards" (which I cannot find so cannot verify). I think that if we previously decided a page (BLP) was notable we stick with that unless there was a clear error. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless DNC

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

Confusing mix of various technologies. Combines and conflates multiple technologies for transmitting data to a CNC machine, which might have been interesting when the article was written in 2008 but doesn't really stand out at all in today's much more wireless-friendly era. Doesn't really have a main topic and fails WP:GNG. Note the additional criticism from a claimed SME on the talk page. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Real-time Cmix

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated 18 days ago, and there was no participation, so it was soft deleted. The soft deletion was challenged, the article was restored 11 hours ago, and it's still not well sourced. I'm guessing unilateral draftication, a redirect, or other alternatives to deletion may also be challenged, so I'm nominating this for an AfD discussion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Software, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't able to find WP:SIGCOV. There's a lot of one-off mentions and the best source I found was written by the creators of the program making it a primary source. I think there's enough to go on here, keep. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schützenpanzer Does the conference paper I found below count in your book as independent SIGCOV? Mach61 02:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll strike my vote. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's coverage at a conference peper (doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2266-4_34) but I'm not sure if its a primary or secondary source. Mach61 02:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 Kind of hard to tell with a paywall, isn't it? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library, click this link and log in with your WP account if prompted. Mach61 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep upon skimming it has a lot of secondary information on RTcmix and is only a primary with regard to the WebRTcmix framework the authors developed.
Mach61 02:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 It's almost like I'm reading another language. Glad someone understands that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing it referenced as an important computer music program in books on the history of electronic music in google books. The content is too technical for me though, and I don't understand it. It's clearly a topic we need a subject matter expert to work on, because the learning curve is high. The sourcing though is there, its just dense.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]