Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Points of interest related to Computing on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style
Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style
| Deletion Sorting Project |
|---|
|
|
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:
Computing
[edit ]AfDs for this article:
- SORCER (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 )
Flagged as failing WP:GNG, WP:OR, and being too technical since December 2013, it is time to bring this forward for discussion again. I am making a neutral nomination on that basis. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 23:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
G-Portugol
[edit ]- G-Portugol (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 )
Not yet notable per WP:Product or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only routine academic coverage, and nothing in GBooks. The Manzano book cited is an 80-page self-published reference, with the shown ISBN not found in searches of Karlsruhe or Worldcat. The project itself was moribund in 2010, then nine minor commits were made to master between this month and last. The merge proposal to a non-existent article looks like it's about to be procedurally closed shortly. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Portugal. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I believe that Portugal was tagged incorrectly. The name Portugol is a combination of three words: Portuguese, Algol, and Pascal — (PORTUguese, ALGOL, and PascaL). Algol and Pascal are programming languages. G-Portugol was created by a Brazilian. Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- There are two books in Portuguese:
- - Algoritmos - Lógica para Desenvolvimento de Programação Imperativa de Computadores
- - G-Portugol Programação de Computadores em Português
- The project is being maintained in Debian. It is included in all the latest stable versions of Debian. It is a stable project, which is why it has few changes. Recently, the "gportugol" GitHub repository was created to host the contributions that were previously only available in Debian, as well as to welcome new contributors.
- An article about it has existed on the Portuguese Wikipedia since 2007. Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- What is the publisher of those books? The listings do not give obvious information. -- Recon rabbit 17:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- - Algoritmos - Lógica para Desenvolvimento de Programação Imperativa de Computadores
- Publisher: LTC
- Publication Date: April 8, 2025
- Edition: 30th
- Language: Portuguese
- Number of Pages: 424 pages
- ISBN-10: 6558110075
- ISBN-13: 978-6558110071
- - G-Portugol Programação de Computadores em Português
- Publisher: Propes Vivens
- Publication Date: 2017
- Edition: 1st
- Language: Portuguese
- Number of Pages: 80
- ISBN: 978-85-916492-9-7 Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The publisher of the first book listed is LTC, which appears to be a well-established publishing house in Brazil. The book is about algorithms for imperative programming, not about G-Portugol, but its description on Amazon, roughly translated, says: "The appendices present the resolution of some fixation exercises and examples of coding written programs interpreters of algorithmic languages, such as VisuAlg, Portugol Studio, Portugol Online, G-Portugol and ILA".
- What is the publisher of those books? The listings do not give obvious information. -- Recon rabbit 17:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Propes Vivens, publisher of the second book listed, is Prof. Manzano's own self-publishing imprint. Wikishovel (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Equational prover (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 found one independent source (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html), but no others. EQP is already mentioned on Robbins algebra and William McCune and the NYT source can be added to those pages. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Technology, and Computing. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep It seems to have been referenced by number of other authors in addition to the NYT article. Kspiers (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- This is exceptionally sloppy work on your part. Have you checked to make sure that these references are not passing mentions? Please read WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Ouch. "Exceptionally sloppy work" is kinda harsh. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- It may be harsh, but it is not unfair. Neither you nor Kspiers appear to have actually read the NYT article, because it is clearly a passing mention. Also, the page that Kspiers linked is a collection of abstracts that all mention EQP once or twice at most. Incredibly embarassing behavior for two users with a combined tenure of 30 years: I expect better. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Please chill. First, I did look more closely at the papers which is why I edited the page to include one of them. Second, just because my account has existed for a while doesn't mean this isn't my first time commenting on a AfD. Thanks for making it a pleasant experience that I'll want to do more of. Kspiers (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- No need to thank me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Please chill. First, I did look more closely at the papers which is why I edited the page to include one of them. Second, just because my account has existed for a while doesn't mean this isn't my first time commenting on a AfD. Thanks for making it a pleasant experience that I'll want to do more of. Kspiers (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- It may be harsh, but it is not unfair. Neither you nor Kspiers appear to have actually read the NYT article, because it is clearly a passing mention. Also, the page that Kspiers linked is a collection of abstracts that all mention EQP once or twice at most. Incredibly embarassing behavior for two users with a combined tenure of 30 years: I expect better. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Ouch. "Exceptionally sloppy work" is kinda harsh. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- This is exceptionally sloppy work on your part. Have you checked to make sure that these references are not passing mentions? Please read WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Comment - "Equational prover" is a generic term. The article is about EQP, a particular equational prover. "Equational prover" looks notable based on Google Scholar results. As for "EQP", the prover, the NY Times article looks compelling. Either this article needs to be expanded to cover equational provers in general or it need to be renamed to something like "EQP (educational prover)". --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Merge or redirect to Robbins algebra : The NYT article is a passing mention. I did find this, which is more than a passing mention of EQP. However, nearly all of the literature that I could find mentions EQP in passing and is related to Robbins algebras, specifically McCune's use of EQP to prove that all Robbins algebras are boolean algebras. While I also don't really have a strong preference on a merge / redirect target, I think it is an uphill battle to claim that we should keep this as a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Redirect to Robbins algebra Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Merge to Robbins algebra. WP:GNG stipulates there should
generally
besignificant coverage
inmultiple
secondary sources (with a footnote thatLack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic
). The NYT article is a good source, with the proof of the Robbins conjecture as its main topic but also covering EQP as a secondary topic (starting from the lead sentence of its second paragraph). However, a second GNG source has proven difficult to find. These quotes may help explain why: (Bonacina/Stickel)EQP was written with a specific goal in mind: proving the Robbins conjecture
; (Wos)Bill designed another automated reasoning program he called EQP, a program with built-in commutative/associative unification. Perhaps one reason he did so, perhaps the main one, was his intention of answering the decades-old Robbins algebra problem
. Multiple Argonne sources are available, which have comprehensive coverage but are non-independent. Hence they can't be used to prove notability for EQP but can be used in Robbins algebra given other sources already establish notability; merging to this article seems an appropriate course of action. (Only difference to redirecting is that I'd like us to add the clausedeveloped by the Mathematics and Computer Science Division of the Argonne National Laboratory
to the merge target.) Preimage (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Denis Yarats
[edit ]- Denis Yarats (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 )
Delete or Redirect to Perplexity AI : The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or entrepreneurs. Most references resemble LinkedIn or primary/self-sourced material. Even though he is a co-founder of a company, the other founders themselves do not have established notability. Overall, the article reads more like a professional portfolio than an encyclopedic biography. Bech07 (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Fails to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is no evidence of independent recognition or sustained coverage establishing encyclopedic notability. Also fails to meet the criteria for academics (WP:PROF) and for organizational figures (WP:ORG). Bech07 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 27. —cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 19:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Artificial intelligence, Computing, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep - Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC with almost 10,000 Google Scholar citations and 22 H-index level. Plus he is co-founder of one of the biggest AI companies and with dozens of articles mentioning him could mean he meets WP:BASIC as well.Darkm777 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Thank you. I was just viewing an WSJ article and the sign up for subscription window was quite proudly named as "Sponsored by Perplexity". That's how I got here and made this account to say that. Of course their privacy is more important to them than ours. They should have to fully disclose everything about them if they are able to view our data. Especially our reading history. Survivoraalc (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- This is the only contribution made by this user. Lamona (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Thank you. I was just viewing an WSJ article and the sign up for subscription window was quite proudly named as "Sponsored by Perplexity". That's how I got here and made this account to say that. Of course their privacy is more important to them than ours. They should have to fully disclose everything about them if they are able to view our data. Especially our reading history. Survivoraalc (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep There's very little reliable biographical info, but he does meet NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Merge with Perplexity AI Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Redirect. The sourcing is far below what we require for a BLP. In ordinary times, this is not a big problem, but nowadays, it is a legal risk. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I think it does meet WP:BLP. All biographical facts are sourced WP:V; there are no non-neutral or controversial statements about him; and there is no original research. That doesn't argue against a redirect. Lamona (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Interoperable Object Reference (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2025)