Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

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
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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd }} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded }} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Computing

[edit ]
Unreal Media Server (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 )

This article on a company's video streaming software was created in 2012 (and rejected as a draft several times for various issues along the way). A dozen years later, it seems like most of the issues are still present. The page is essentially an advertisement for the product, with 90% of it being a list of supported protocols and a changelog. The sources listed do not provide in-depth coverage of Unreal Media Server, and do not support an argument for the subject's notability.

A WP:BEFORE brought up installation/developer guides, a listing on AWS Marketplace, and unrelated news about Unreal Engine, but no good sources on the topic. I believe this page fails general and web notability guidelines. Iiii I I I (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Jam.py (web framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:NSOFT, the only reliable-looking source is [1], but the part before the how-to guide is rather small for that source alone to confer significant notability. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Egon Zakrajšek (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 am nominating this for deletion as this article is from as @Timtrent put it "from the wild west days" of wikipedia, it only cites a single unverifiable source, which does not meet Wikipedia's reliability or verifiability standards. And the subject appears to lack sufficient notability based on the available sources. Thus it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Codonified (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dave Plummer (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 )

Does not pass WP:GNG. All extraordinary claims are from primary sources, and removing that, the only thing of note is the softwareonline lawsuit which is not notable in itself and puts us solidly in WP:PERP territory. themoon @talk :~$ 08:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Internet. themoon @talk :~$ 08:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep: Significant coverage at PC Gamer[9], The Register [10], ZDNet [11], Regina Leader Post [12], Vintage Computing Federation [13], Windows Central [14], University of Regina Degrees Magazine [15], NeoWin [16], ClearMeasure [17], and the Lex Fridman Podcast [18]. Plus he has a million subscribers and 77 million views on YouTube. Simply being the Creator of Task Manager for Windows, Space Cadet Pinball for Windows NT, Zip file support for Windows and HyperCache for the Amiga would be enough to make him notable. Also the nomination is misleading. WP:PERP does not apply to someone simply because they settled a lawsuit out of court. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Refs 1 and 2 are rehashes of youtube videos of his. refs 3 and 4 is a rehash of a reddit post of his. ref 5 has dubious independance, 6 is rehash of a video, again. 7 passes, 8 is sourced from his tweets, 9 and 10 are interviews.
    That makes for 1 source, 2 if we count charitably, that establish notability. My rationale for nomination is simply that if you remove things that are only verifiable from primary sources, all that's left is the lawsuit.
    Put it simply, I'm doubting that he did everything he's claiming he did, because he has a financial incentive to tell embellished stories and to flash his old microsoft employee badge on youtube. I'm doubting he actually created task manager and zip support, he verifiably did not create but simply ported space cadet, and Hypercache is not notable itself, let alone WP:NINI concerns.
    The article (and the subject) in general makes wild claims. "As intern I wrote a bunch of major features" does not pass the smell test. Finally, as someone who works in software, I find it hard to believe microsoft would take someone normally tasked to work on disk-related code and give them the task of porting a pinball game, writing zip file support or anti-piracy code. That's simply not how that works. themoon @talk :~$ 08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    PC Gamer, The Register and ZDNet don't rehash my YouTube videos or Reddit posts. Merko (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I have a suspicion (no actual evidence outside of WP:DUCK) that Themoonisacheese is somehow associated with the Dave Plummer Troll who has been vandalizing the page for years.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] They both appear to have a strong personal animosity towards Plummer and should be topic banned from editing in that area. Besides the obvious (claiming that PC Gamer, The Register and ZDNet are not RS because reasons, claiming that RSs are lying about Plummer's accomplishments), pretty much nobody on earth other than the Dave Plummer Troll cares about a [already well documented in the article] decades old case where a software company ran by Plummer made some super dubious marketing claims, got busted for it, and settled out of court with a promise never to do anything like that again. The final confirmation will be seeing once again the oft-repeated lie that a press release from a prosecutor is the same as a verdict from a court, while a similar press release from the defense attorney on the other side should be ignored. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    well that's a strong accusation but you can ask for a checkuser if you'd like; I assure you i'm, at worst, a deletionist. I have nothing about the subject personally, I remember seeing a few of his videos and going "huh, neat". I don't really care about the lawsuit stuff and frankly i don't fully understand it. What i understand is this: The subject of the article's claimed notability can't be based on that lawsuit per WP:PERP, so the rest of the claims must hold up to scrutiny for the article not be deleted; yet they don't.
    The PC gamer does rehash a youtube video. It's composed of a small intro about space cadet, then 5 paragraphs that paraphrase or quote the youtube video, and a closing paragraph about nostalgia for old windows. this is nowhere near a secondary source.
    The Register article does rehash a youtube video. The entire contents paraphrase a youtube video, and frankly it reads like a bad AI summary. It offers no commentary or reporting of any kind besides "here's what Dave Plummer has said in a video". It is not a secondary source.
    The ZDNet article does rehash a reddit post, specifically [26]. It also rehashes the university of regina talk available on the subject's channel. it also offetrs no commentary or reporting of any kind besides "here's what dave plummer has said in his talk and on reddit". the same goes for every source linked by you, perhaps except 7 which I have independence concerns about but willing to accept and 5 which is likely a copy written by the subject but sure, whatever.
    This does not sufficiently establish notability. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that the subject meets GNG has currently very few pieces of evidence that aren't directly provided by the subject. themoon @talk :~$ 17:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I retract my suspicions. The Dave Plummer Troll is fixated on the lawsuit. You clearly are not. My apologies. Sorry about that.
    When a mainstream RS source reports information from a non-RS YouTube video, that makes the information in the YouTube video notable, not the other way around. Reliability, as opposed to notability, is more complicated. In many cases the only reliability added is the reliability of the claim that the YouTube video contains the information, not the reliability of the information itself. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    alright, i guess my exact reason for deletion are more nuanced that straight up GNG in the usual sense, but hopefully it is clear that there is still a notability problem due to the reliability of the information:
    If all the info on the subject is from the subject itself, relayed through churnalism because headlines where you say "you wont BELIEVE what went on at microsoft" get clicks, then not only is that information about what went on at microsoft not reliable, but it also can't possibly establish notability for the person making the claim, unless we were discussing a person notable for making unsourced claims about microsoft (which, arguably we are but the article far from reflects that).
    In my view, the article should be deleted because for it to be truthful to our standards of reliability, it would have to be rewritten to pretty much all be "Plummer claims to have[...] and claims the company culture at microsoft[...]", at which point i hope it becomes evident that if the claims cannot be sourced, the subject is not norable enough for inclusion. Perhaps you disagree with this view, but i'd like to see policy-based arguments backing your point in that case. themoon @talk :~$ 21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I would agree with all of the 'less than keep' comments above. There are few people as capable of self promotion as Plummer is. Constantly so. Overall I'd just about go with a Keep, if only for a quieter life. But I'd like to see sourcing that wasn't just taking him at his word and repeating it. We've got him if we want to hear (again) how he wrote Task Manager. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per Guy Macon's comment above. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources as demonstrated by Guy Macon. Merko (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Cast AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are mostly routine fundraising news and product announcements, plus a few non-independent sources that entirely rely on interviews/statements from the company or its clients ([27], [28]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, techtimes.com is generally unreliable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The Speed Traders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

No reviews for WP:NBOOK or other indication of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The review in question has been represented in several places (not just in the article) as if it was an official review for Seeking Alpha. It wasn't - Jubin is a site user, not a staff member. Seeking Alpha is kind of like Linkedin and Goodreads in how it operates, as it allows people to create accounts and (re)post their own content to the site. So because someone tried portraying the review as if it was an official one for Seeking Alpha as opposed to something that originated on her personal blog, it puts the entire thing into question. We'd scrutinize it anyway, as that's what we're supposed to do, but now we have to really take a hard look at it.
Offhand this is probably not going to pass NBOOK, but I'll give a good faith look. But if Cunard couldn't find anything then I'm unlikely to find anything either. A search on Newspapers.com already came up with nothing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 12:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I tried to find the Futures review without luck but I'd be open in theory to considering it half an NBOOK pass. I don't believe a blog post or blurb has ever been considered a notability-conferring source for NBOOK even in a case where it's a subject expert, so I'd consider Jubin basically a dead end. If you do turn up something non-self-published that would change my mind. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
It's happened before (blogs, not blurbs). It's not super common, but it happens. For example, I can't remember the book name but it was something dealing with mythology. The blog was written by a fairly well respected academic who was very frequently cited in academic/scholarly stuff. There was another situation where the blog was written by the former chief editor of a major newspaper. In another situation the blog was usable because it was used fairly heavily and regularly as a source in books put out by major academic/scholarly outlets and/or well-known subject experts. Of course in that situation it was a blog put out by a set staff, rather than a crowdsourced site. Of course blurbs are always unusable, as they're almost always 1-2 sentence statements directly solicited by the publisher and/or author in order to promote the book. They're always going to be favorable. The only time they wouldn't be is if they deliberately wanted to put something negative on the cover, usually for comedic effect.
My point with all of this isn't to argue for this blog to be usable, rather just that we should be cautious about making blanket statements. I don't want there to be a situation like the mythology book and for an otherwise good source to get tossed out as unusable because there's an assumption that blogs are always unusable. In this situation the blog isn't usable because while a blog post by Jubin would be usable as a RS if we were sourcing a book about philosophy, this specific situation she isn't because it's about a different subject area and she's kind of an unknown quantity in that regard.
tl;dnr: In most situations blogs aren't usable to establish NBOOK (or any notability guideline) but it does happen more frequently than you think. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 11:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The 551-word review from Futures (now Modern Trader ) is archived at Internet Archive and linked in the article:I missed this while searching for sources as I didn't click on this link in the article. This review brings the book halfway toward meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. If there were just one more review, the book would be notable. But I couldn't find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Just in case, I’d say draftity for now instead of just deleting. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I was wondering how in the world I'd missed that, but it looks like the IAbot found an archived link after I made the nomination -- the link in the article did not lead anywhere useful when I looked and during my unsuccessful hunt I formed the perhaps-unfair suspicion that (like the Jubin review) it was a blog. Glad you pointed this out! Now that I can see it, I do agree it would be 1/2 of NBOOK, though the second half is still not found. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Testsigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An American company with majority of references coming from Indian news sites. It should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

    • Keep First: In response to the statement, "An American company with the majority of references coming from Indian news sites," it should be clarified that the founder is originally from India, which naturally explains why a significant portion of media coverage originates from Indian outlets. Being of Indian origin and establishing a company headquartered in California represents a notable achievement, and such coverage from Indian media is both expected and relevant.
    • Second: With regard to WP:NCORP, the primary criterion states: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The company in question has indeed received substantial coverage from multiple independent and reliable third-party media outlets. None of the cited sources are directly affiliated with or controlled by the subject like, 1 2 3.
    • Third: Concerning WP:CORPDEPTH, none of the provided references constitute trivial or incidental mentions. Each reference includes meaningful content such as overviews, descriptions, commentaries, analyses, or evaluations of Testsigma, demonstrating significant depth of coverage 4 5 6.
    • Fourth: Regarding WP:RSNOINDIA, it is inaccurate to state that the subject has only been covered by paid Indian media outlets. It makes sense if any media publication is labeled so, but it would unfair to say that these research publications are also paid work 4 5 6.
    • Fifth: As for WP:ROUTINE, while some references discuss common business developments such as funding rounds or expansions—topics typically reported by credible media outlets when a company secures major investments—many other sources provide detailed and substantive coverage that extends beyond routine announcements.
    • In light of the above points, deleting the page would not be justified. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability and reliability standards and therefore should be retained.Aquarave (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete: I don't see this passing WP:NPROD. The current sources consist of bachelor's/master's theses (which fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP), trivial list entries, press releases, corporate blogs, routine fundraising coverage, and a VentureBeat business profile that I'd argue is non-independent. The only independent borderline SIGCOV I found was a short paragraph in this paper. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep: If all references are considered low-quality and those from Indian sources and Forbes are disregarded, that would constitute a separate discussion. However, the current references are relevant and substantive, as they meaningfully address the subject rather than offering trivial mentions.
  • Regarding WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not only this paper, this paper also meets the required criteria. The Dissertations subsection states: "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature." This particular thesis has been cited by other researchers, indicating its academic value. Moreover, it examines the subject in considerable depth and was completed in 2018; since then, the company has likely expanded and progressed significantly—further supporting its notability for inclusion on Wikipedia.
  • I therefore recommend retaining the article and continuing to improve it, especially since most of the promotional press releases have already been removed. Cruzdoze (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    The first paper, which I already mentioned, is borderline in terms of significant coverage, since it only has a single paragraph. The second paper is a masters thesis, which according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP is only reliable if it has "significant scholarly influence". It is cited by exactly one other paper, which is also a masters thesis, which does not show "significant scholarly influence". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep: I have carefully gone through both the article and the concerns raised here, and I believe the subject clearly meets the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. The company has been the focus of multiple independent, non-trivial, and reliable secondary sources that provide substantial discussion about its products, market positioning, and role in the low-code testing ecosystem.

While several sources originate from Indian outlets, this does not automatically make them unreliable under WP:RS, many are established technology and business publications that routinely cover international startups. The founder’s Indian background also reasonably explains the regional interest, which is consistent with how global startups are covered in their countries of origin. Furthermore, the page no longer includes promotional or primary content; it has undergone significant cleanup, improving neutrality and compliance with WP:NPOV. The remaining references give depth rather than routine press coverage, including detailed analyses of company's platform, funding milestones, and industry relevance. In light of the available sourcing and the evident subject depth, deletion is not justified. Instead, continued improvement and expansion based on additional reliable sources would be a more constructive approach. JKLucy (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

JerryScript (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 )

This scripting engine has been tagged for notability for about 9 years. I had a look for independent news sources, but couldn't find anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
2005 Ram Mandir attack (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 )

The article details a minor event which occurred two decades ago, and which has completely failed WP:LASTING. It resulted in no notable retrospectives, no policy analyses, no security reforms, no social or political shifts, no legal precedent, and in general no lasting consequences. Furthermore, the article has just a single source, entirely unsourced sections and significant issues with WP:V. For more than a decade, the article had another source, that being a WP:HOAX source which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The article has had WP:V issues since its conception but has not been improved at all. The state of the article in 2006 and today is indistinguishable. It should be deleted. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The sources cited by him suggests that the subject clearly satisfies the #2 criterion of WP:NEVENT, which mentions "or were very widely covered in diverse sources". Although it fails in the #1 criteria of WP:NEVENT owing to no proper WP:LASTING, this terror attack did play - a not very significant, but considerable role in the Ram Mandir Controversy over the past few years. Overall, seems just borderline enough for the article to save itself. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
It is not simply WP:LASTING that the 2005 Ram Mandir attack fails. The incident also fails WP:GEOSCOPE, another inclusion criteria under WP:NEVENT, which states, "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." GEOSCOPE further adds, "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria are not something to selectively choose, applying some criteria while ignoring others that the article does not meet. By definition, a criterion is something that should be fully satisfied by an article’s subject, something this specific case fails to do. We simply cannot say, "this article fails this criterion but should remain in the mainspace because it is WP:JUSTNOTABLE." — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete - Fails WP:LASTING. Has all of the problems mention in the multiple issues template. I also agree with the comments by EarthDude and the others commenting on issues with the article and deficiencies under other categories such as GEOSCOPe and NEVENT. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Edit: I am persuaded to step back from my comment about LASTING, by the comments and the apparent inclusion of similar events in the general article. I am still concerned about the other points made in the template. Nonetheless, I suppose this "weakens" my delete comment to some extent. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Strong Keep per TryKid's arguments. I am also seeing a misunderstanding of WP:NEVENT in the nom, (Personal attack removed). A terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime, especially not when it receives as long-term coverage as this one has. The attack is also regularly memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 (as apparent from TryKid's links), i.e. has had a lasting impact on people's memory, which means it certainly passes WP:LASTING as well. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Sad to see that two of the three arguing for keeping the article had to resort to making WP:PERSONALATTACKS. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I was noting from experience. Please do not remove or edit my comments unilaterally without seeking an explanation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete - A minor attack that received some coverage when it happened but barely anything afterwards, recent news relating to legal matters of the suspects is routine and does not contribute to the notability of the event. There hasn't been sustained long term coverage and impact was short lived. Undoubtedly fails WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:LASTING. There is no long term coverage for this event in reliable sources, if WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources are excluded, I would expect coverage from the actual reliable sources if the article is supposed to be kept. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete - I agree that there was initial coverage, just like there is for 100s of other similar incidents. However, there is no recent significant coverage about the subject from independent sources as mentioned above. That establishes the case for deletion. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    The sources cited in the article show coverage spanning 2005 to 2019. That isn't just "initial". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment: Two comments from non-ECP editors were removed (first, second) under the assertion that this article is covered by the restrictions on Indian military history articles. This seems pretty dubious even "broadly construed", but I'll leave it to noting the removals here. TryKid [dubious – discuss ] 14:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    The removal of non-ECP comments by other editors is completely in line with WP:CT/IMH, which dictates that all Wikipedia content related to Indian military history, broadly construed, is under extended-confirmed restricted. This article, based upon a terrorist attack, is of course related to military history. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×ばつ ☎ 00:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Proggy programming fonts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Fails WP:GNG. The article's current sources do not contain significant coverage. (The Coding Horror piece only contains a few sentences, not quite significant coverage.) In a WP:BEFORE search, I could not find any more coverage other than self-published blogs, which are not reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Waluigi effect (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 )

Re-nomination. The topic appears to be a neologism with limited uptake in reliable secondary sources, fails WP:NEO and WP:N. Coverage is primarily primary/derivative commentary and blogs rather than significant independent sources, so it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:RS. If independent, in-depth sourcing exists, it has not been demonstrated in the article.

There is no indication of notability for the term "Waluigi effect" per WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE. The term is not recognized in reliable sources as a phenomenon in large language models (LLMs) or artificial intelligence (AI). Per WP:RS, it appears to have originated from a personal blog post by a crypto blogger on Substack in 2023[3] and was subsequently discussed on LessWrong and in some online forums. While a conference paper cites LessWrong as a source, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The term is not established within the AI or machine learning field. Research on related topics, such as "sleeper agents" in AI, has been published by frontier labs under different terminology[4] . The "Waluigi effect" does not meet Wikipedia's notability or reliable sourcing standards and is not an accepted term of art in the field. 0xReflektor (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment: Sources do not sufficiently support the name of the effect. If the article is merged, AI alignment makes sense as a target. Sushidude21! (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

References

  1. ^ Meng Wu; Weixin Dong; Qiang Zhao; Zhizhong Pan; Baojian Hua (2023). "An Empirical Study of Lightweight JavaScript Engines". IEEE: 413–422. doi:10.1109/QRS-C60940.2023.00103. ISBN 979-8-3503-5939-8.
  2. ^ Kai Grunert (2020). "Overview of JavaScript Engines for Resource-Constrained Microcontrollers". IEEE: 1–7. doi:10.23919/SpliTech49282.2020.9243749. ISBN 978-953-290-105-4.
  3. ^ https://coryeth.substack.com/p/the-waluigi-effect
  4. ^ https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566
Waluigi is the Mario (franchise) character this effect gets its name from. While the AI Waluigi effect has an etymological connection to the character, it could be tricky to merge such disparate content. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Well it's the only target that makes sense given the conscious decision to name it after Waluigi. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
No, the article is not about Waluigi, at all... Merko (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 06:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

https://fortune.com/2023/05/27/what-is-waluigi-effect-artificial-intelligence-personal-assistant-bill-gates/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/podcasts/hard-fork-don-beyer-tiktok.html) and it even has a Know Your Meme article now, so probs should be kept. If not should me merged Zulresso! :D (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Keep or Merge to AI alignment. There does seem to be some mention of this in RS; I'd be more inclined to just request additional citations. Still, the phenomenon in question has everything to do with AI and nothing to do with Waluigi, so if it is to be merged, the place to put it is obvious. Endovior (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Merged or Deleted, The concept discussed here is not a legitimate fringe belief, but rather a buzzword that originated from a blog post. It has only gained academic attention because some papers cited LessWrong as a source creating circular attribution pointing back to the blog post. By hosting this article, Wikipedia inadvertently legitimizes this concept when people search to verify its authenticity. We take greater lengths to flag fringe beliefs that are minority positions in scholarship, yet somehow seem willing to maintain this article that documents an off-hand Substack theory. 0xReflektor (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Verse (programming language) (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 saw that this article has been tagged for sources since June 2024 and for notability since September 2024, so I checked the existing references, which unfortunately did not indicate notability. In the hope of finding better sources, I made searches, using three different web search facilities, but unfortunately none of them turned up anything helpful. The references in the article are the GitHub download page for Verse; a YouTube video made by the creators of Verse; a site called "VerseWiki", which speaks for itself; a paper with 8 co-authors, 6 of whom are stated to work for Epic Games, the company which created "Verse". None of those is substantial coverage in an independent source. Typical things I found on searching were the Wikipedia article; several pages on the site of Epic Games; a question about "Verse" on Reddit; more YouTube videos, at least some and perhaps all made by the creators of Verse; GitHub again; pages on blogs, Fandom, and web forums. I considered making a PROD, but decided I prefer to bring it to AfD in case someone can find something better than I managed to. (The article was created by a single purpose account, for which the substantial majority of edits were related to Verse, and, if I am not mistaken, only one edit was not related to Epic Games.) JBW (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I expect that this will be deleted. But that's because WP's capacity to favour dogma over value is legendary. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I am truly astonished to see an editor with so much experience giving such a pure WP:CRYSTAL argument as "Verse is an important language of the near future". And then to continue with "There's still pretty much nothing outside Epic about it", as part of an argument to keep the article? "There's pretty much no coverage from any independent source" is an argument to delete it. JBW (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Did you bother to read my !vote, or did anything more than linking a WP:WIKICAPS confuse you too much? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Have you considered engaging other users in good faith instead of pretending they didn't read what you wrote? It's not their fault you wrote such a terrible rationale. JBW is 100% spot-on: this is textbook WP: CRYSTAL. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete: My WP: BEFORE did not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
That's the same thing as deletion, in terms of then not doing that stuff encyclopedias are meant to do. Except it also rather supports the claim for Verse to be notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
That's not true. We frequently use redirects to handle subjects which are not independently notable. You clearly do not understand what redirects are used for. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Many things are done frequently here. Doesn't make them any better.
To be useful, a redirect to UEFN would have to be a merge and redirect, which is a different thing. If a topic isn't notable, is never going to be notable, but is stil worthwhile covering, then that's something we might do. After all, lists are a good example of something where the named topic passes WP:N, its components don't.
But what's the difference here between Verse passing 'useful' (which still needs to be sourced, per WP:V if not WP:N) and it simply passing WP:N? If Verse is sufficiently important to justify coverage in UEFN, and it's obviously a distinct topic (we cover plenty of embedded scripting languages) then why not just have it as an article? It's not as if it's restricted to UEFN only. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The difference is that we don't keep articles around because they're useful. See WP: USEFUL. I would advise that you familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policy before commenting again; I am shocked that someone with two decades of editing experience is seriously making arguments like these. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Open Graph Drawing Framework (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 notable as there is no external coverage of this framework/library. Only sources are the paper which introduces it and the official website. – SD0001 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Notable as there are 243 citations of the paper that describes it (according to Google Scholar). AmirOnWiki (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For software libraries useful in research work, it's common to use citations to just indicate that the library was used. The citations don't actually talk about the library. – SD0001 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Computing proposed deletions (PROD)

[edit ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /