Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSCOMP)
Shortcuts
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

Advanced SCSI Programming Interface

edit
Advanced SCSI Programming Interface (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 meet the bar for WP: N. I can't find any reliable source that isn't written by Brian Sawert. I found a student project by Johannes Lieder, some passing mentions, and a couple of sources whose reliability seems questionable at best, but without another source to establish notability, I believe this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote

edit
Emote (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 as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch[1][2] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),[3][4] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),[5] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?
    Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:
    "In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;[6] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;[7] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.
  2. ^ Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  3. ^ "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  4. ^ Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  5. ^ Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  6. ^ Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.
  7. ^ Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

SCSI command

edit
AfDs for this article:
SCSI command (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: NOTDICT and WP: NOTTEXTBOOK. I also can't find any sources that would make the article read like an encyclopedia page, as opposed to technical documentation.

There was an AfD for this article in 2005, that ended with a result of No Consensus. Nearly every Keep vote in that AfD reads like an example from WP: ATA. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an overview, no manual or textbook. Could be improved, of course. --Zac67 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously telling me that a bloated 191-line entry table of codes is an "overview"? This is a glorified manual. I also don't understand your handwaving about how the article "could be improved", given that there is a dearth of sources about this subject that could be used to make this article encyclopedic. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirsendu

edit
Shirsendu (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)

Sources are SPONSORED, which don’t count towards notability. The other sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed your comment on the created article. I do have more sources but I didn't add them as it conflicts with the unambiguous advertising. But I do wanna show you:.
Google Knowledge Panel: https://g.co/kgs/C3mq8zy (It is generated by google only from trusted sources)
This person seems to an artist as well. I did happen to find his Spotify artist profile: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0OSjTTuzVglE32S8qUi0rw
This person also has an official artist channel on Youtube (Channel with music note) which is only possible if he is a genuine artist: https://www.youtube.com/@shirshaw64p
This person also has a verified facebook page back from 2021 when paid verification wasn't even an option. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Shirshaw64p
This things I haven't added as it would be promotional. But from what I listed, that is why I feel like this person is notable. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathanbyrd25 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
@Nathanbyrd25: These things do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTABILITY, which requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Article creator seems to be relentlessly persistent in suggesting sources that don't count toward notability for reasons I don't understand, even though they have been told nicely to read the relevant guidelines. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Downes

edit
Stephen Downes (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)

Would not qualify for NPOL. If qualified for NACADEMICS, would need some sources to support that, which I'm not seeing. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Heinz

edit
Federico Heinz (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 don't think this passes WP: N. I found one book that makes several mentions of Heinz (by Anita Say Chan), but everything else I could find is either not independent of the subject or references the subject in passing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some secondary sources with coverage. [4], [5], [6], [7], Whether this amounts to WP:SIGCOV is up for debate. To me it is borderline.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found [1] when doing a WP: BEFORE. [2] looks like a trivial mention. No comment about [3] and [4] as they are in a language I cannot read (though other people are more than welcome to translate those passages and make comments about them here). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. A possible WP:ATD would be redirecting to Fundación Vía Libre.4meter4 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with your proposed ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^txt2regex$

edit
^txt2regex$ (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: N. I can't find any credible secondary sources that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable object (computing)

edit
Portable object (computing) (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'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

edit
Igor Pavlov (programmer) (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 BryceM2001 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Perry (computer specialist)

edit
David Perry (computer specialist) (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)

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

Patrick Juola

edit
Patrick Juola (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 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]
  • Keep, but improve. As "Joseph A. Lauritis, C.S.Sp Endowed Chair in Teaching and Technology", he pretty clearly meets WP:PROF criterion 5. He's also won a Fullbright Fellowship, which (my instinct is) is enough for criterion 2. The Rowling stuff certainly helps, too. (Here is a profile in the Chronicle of Higher Education, for example.) And he's authored several books, so he may meet WP:AUTHOR, but I've not looked closely. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. With apologies to User:J Milburn but just having a chair definitely does not qualify under #C5, it has to be a very major chair as discussed in the notes. Also getting a Fulbright is definitely not notable enough to qualify for anything by itself. The only reason I have a Weak is because the topics he has in GS are low citations topics. If there were truly independent awards then I might change to Keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Changed to Abstain, since notability is now being based upon WP:BASIC whereas previously I voted to disagree with the comments by Josh Milburn that he passed WP:NPROF. I don't have enough experience with the other classes of WP:NOTABILITY compared to others in this discussion, hence I am now abstaining. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify what parts of the notes you're referring to? 5a refers to sourcing; 5c is about the institution. 5b clarifies that the chair in question 'can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments', but that applies here; he was a tenured full professor before being given the chair. As for Fullbright: my reading of criterion 2a was that a Fullbright Fellowship (which is surely 'independent'?) would presumably count. But, in any case, these things all point towards notability, and certainly (in my view) push back against the 'notable for one event' claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A good way to judge awards is by who gets them, how selective they are and how much attention a university gives them. Everyone from junior to emeritus can get a Fulbright; there are about 900 faculty scholars per year, and top universities do only a nominal press release and nothing else. (The statement about how uni admin considers them is both personal experience and by asking several others.)
      You can compare this to NAE/NAS, where in all the cases I know the academic received much, much more from the admin, justifiably.
      N.B., David Eppstein has already responded about #C5 in detail. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that this chair does not pass #C5. As described here (as linked from Douglas Harper), it funds someone to be responsible for "for integrating technology and teaching in Duquesne’s classrooms". That is, it is the kind of chair given ex officio to people who do a job, as a reward or slush fund for doing that job, not the kind of chair described in #C5 given for outstanding scholarship. He may nevertheless be notable in other ways, such as #C1, but not that. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to the profile I posted above, I note this Washington Post article, which opens with 'Until recently, Patrick Juola was known primarily as the man who outed J.K. Rowling as the author of “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” a book she penned under another name. // Now Juola can add another high-profile outing to his resume.' It's about Juola's work on the origins of Bitcoin, meaning that Juola has received significant press coverage for at least two research contributions. (And he's a full professor with a named chair. And he's won a Fullbright Fellowship.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the subject meets WP:PROF by citations. In particular he appears 5th in GS for "stylometry", 10th for "text analysis" and in the top 40 for "digital forensics". I'm seeing fairly highly cited papers that long pre-date the Rowling work, some of which also pre-date recent citation inflation. J Milburn's comment immediately above suggests this is not a one-event situation. Agree that reviews should be sought for his books. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at JSTOR, did not find book reviews, but a chapter in Close Reading with Computers by Martin Paul Eve (JSTOR jj.8305917.7) appears to contain quite a bit of discussion of his opinions, and there also look to be significant mentions in JSTOR 23025619 and arguably JSTOR 26821537,JSTOR 27073814,JSTOR 26451329 as well as possibly some others not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have tidied the article a little, adding references to six decent secondary sources; a profile in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is entirely about Juolo; pieces in National Geographic and Smithsonian that discuss his work at some length (there are lots more like this: Times, Telegraph, Scotsman, etc.); and a piece in The Washington Post that is entirely about his work and (crucially) not about Rowling. Other articles about his research that aren't about Rowling (and, indeed, predate the Rowling story) come from two Pittsburgh broadsheets. Again, these are entirely devoted to Juolo and his work. I suggest that this is enough to show that Juolo meets the notability requirements for biographies at WP:BASIC, even if (as some people here argue) he doesn't meet the requirements at WP:PROF. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Maps

edit
Campus Maps (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 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1258257247"