Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Points of interest related to Computing on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

v
t
e

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

[edit ]

Medical data breach

[edit ]

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

This article is out of date (someone has helpfully made a decent point about medical AI but that's the only real change since about 2015) and largely replicates information in data breach and List_of_data_breaches Joe (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete: Pretty much the same as a data breach, this doesn't have much about why "medical data" is different than other data, then goes on to a long list of breaches. Somewhat USA-focused at the start of the article, then jumps all over the place. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Keep I'm certainly seeing enough sigcov about this topic specifically for full notability. Also note a procedural objection as OP's argument contains no P+G argument for deletion, they appear to have made a merge argument at AfD... AfD is not cleanup and we do seem to have a notable topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I will certainly hold my hands up to a procedural objection and will make a note to carefully guidance so future noms are cleaner. Joe (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete This simply doesn't merit a separate article from data breach. Dharmabumstead (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Free statistical software

[edit ]

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

This article is not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, and should instead be moved to another wiki. BlockArranger (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete or Redirect to List of statistical software . I can find very little about this topic other than software comparisons or discussion about generic free software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I have never attempted that before, but is there any easy way to hand over the material to Wikibooks, in case they find it useful? Otherwise, it may be difficult to dig up after deletion. BlockArranger (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete as per nom, this certainly falls under what Wikipedia is not. This is an essay on statistical software, not an encyclopedia article.

Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete: This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Gellish

[edit ]

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

Almost entirely unsourced for more than a decade, PROD was seconded but removed, likely doesn't meet WP:GNG. FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy pings: Bearian, Cyclopia. FaviFake (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete - while it's sourced, I don't consider that to be significant coverage. Your views might differ. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

SORCER

[edit ]

AfDs for this article:

(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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk 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 ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete for reasons cited in the nomination. Reads like technical documentation, and way too many issues left dangling for way too long. End it already. Dharmabumstead (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete: I am moving my position from my neutral nomination to offering an opinion for deletion. The rationale is the same as the nomination, but I have taken a firmer view. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

G-Portugol

[edit ]

(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".

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 ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 20:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Equational prover

[edit ]

(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 ]

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 be significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (with a footnote that Lack 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 clause developed 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 ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Computing proposed deletions (PROD)

[edit ]

Interoperable Object Reference (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2025)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1323655860"