Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Computing

Near (programmer)

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

WP:BIO1E. All coverage of near is in the context of their tragic death, besides this single piece from Vice [1], which is good, and two not-sigcov pieces (references 8 and 9) about them selling a bunch of video games in 2012. 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG. That is not enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article shows Near worked on various notable projects before being driven to suicide, so not just 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They did not receive any coverage for it besides the one Vice piece, which is not enough for WP:GNG. Plenty of emulator developers are out there, who also don't have coverage. Also Near was nonbinary, not a he. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that, corrected my wording above, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to particularly point out Vrxces's arguments below on the nature of 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even apart from this specific AFD, this isn't true - if someone only received coverage when they died, even if the pieces on their death cover their earlier life (as almost all 1E people have some other coverage of their life), that is still a 1E case. This one is more complicated because Vice piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your hypothetical but that's more an issue due to WP:SUSTAINED I think - at any rate, there is some significant coverage (albeit not strong) suggesting the person's death is not the primary and only significance of their inclusion on the site. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - however, it's clear more references are missing. This may well be because of Near changing their pseudonyms several times along the years. Looking on search engines for "Near" would return near nothing since it's a pseudonym they only used for about a year before their suicide. I also agree with Sarek that they were part of many projects of notability within the emulation community, most of them with their own Wikipedia pages nowadays. Retroarch, one of the biggest "projects" in the community was started as an alternative to bsnes' frontend. Salvadorp2001 (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are there sources for this? If not, it does not help. Near would not inherit the notability of things they worked on unless the sources are about them as well. If there are more sources and they are provided, then sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not fall under WP:1EVENT, which states that "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", due to the coverage from Vice that happened prior to that tragic death. While Near would possibly not have been notable if not for their death, this does not mean the article is inadmissible due to that, as far as I know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...that's not a quote from 1EVENT? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant WP:BLP1E. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article surely does not fall under BLP1E, since Near is no longer living. I probably could have made my nomination clearer, but 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG (I have now added this to the nom). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how it would not equal GNG passing. The earlier coverage makes Near pass WP:SUSTAINED, while that and the news coverage of their death makes them pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I see the issue here and it's that the "one-event" rule and general notability are their own exercises. There is no need to illustrate that, but for the sourcing during the one event, the remaining sources have to establish their own standalone general notability. General notability is construed from the sourcing as a whole, which can be seen to have significant coverage, including from the Vice article'. It's also overlooked that coverage about the death also includes some coverage of Near's contributions to the emulation scene. So this is quite a way away from the policy intent of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E which is meant to curb non-notable articles for someone who is only known for, or involved in a single thing, at a single point in time. I understand the basis of the nomination because the non-death sourcing could be much better, but it isn't in an unsalvageable state for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI/ML Development Platform

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

This article does not establish notability. It's also mostly seemingly AI generated and not useful. Based on the information presented in the article, I see no reason for it to exist. popodameron ⁠talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. popodameron ⁠talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as AI slop. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as AI-generated, and the cited references that I checked never talk about "AI/ML development platforms" as a cohesive topic, but talk about individual AI applications. So it's WP:SYNTH as well as slop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind Srinivas

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

This is a newly created article. The reliable sources mentioned in the article talks more about the company Perplexity AI, and only makes passing mention of Srinivas, while the rest of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Wareon (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable currently. The article is also promotional. 27.4.24.95 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Excelse (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge selected content to Perplexity AI. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Of the 12 sources, 8 are press releases. SOurces 5 and 6 are pieces written by an employee, Source 8 is dead but appears to be a piece about a non-notable award and SOurce 9 doesn't mention the subject. A search for source turned up databases, primary sources, blogs and UGS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Canada. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a brochure, and Wikipedia has no room for more advertisements. Sources do not confer notability anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's analysis of the sources. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to AfD after a previous no consensus decision as it was referenced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Welsh. There remains no significant coverage of the subject of the article. Notability is not inherited and discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions of article subject in the news coverage, but no WP:SIGCOV on this individual. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Nayyn (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dude you don't get to rehash the same arguments over and over again. The sources haven't changed significantly and neither has any of the guidelines. My previous argument still stands. -- Sohom (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion" was what I said before and I still stand by it. -- Sohom (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redirect to 2023-2024 Jason Parker cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That appears to be the topic that has significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the subject is not necessarily notable as an independent cybersecurity researcher, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to note for the record that the article on Dan Kaminsky demonstrates precedent where a security researcher is considered notable specifically for a discovery in his case, the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability. The article itself highlights this under ‘Known for Discovering the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability’ This suggests that discoveries, when accompanied by significant independent coverage, can satisfy WP:GNG. AxiomGaming (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that is entirely original research containing considerable entries in a directory-like fashion. Many of the entries are included via external links and claims are not appropriately supported via reliable, independent sources WP:NOTLINK. Unclear criteria for inclusion in this list makes it difficult to upkeep, as cleanup is regularly required by editors to remove promotional activities and to prevent link farming. No indication of notability on this topic itself or why it is relevant to the encyclopedia. Relevant policies for deletion include WP:ORIGINALITY and WP:NOTGUIDE Nayyn (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unclear that "JavaScript-based source code editors" is even a relevant categorization. Does that mean VS Code forks? Brandon (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to admit I have found this page very useful, but it doesn't really belong here on Wikipedia. I have copied it to the software wiki. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Welsh

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

Subject lacks significant coverage by the sources in the article. Their name has been mentioned reasonably frequently in connection with discovering vulnerabilities, however not a single article spends any time discussing the subject aside from crediting them with the discovery. Brandon (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for similar cases where security researchers were kept despite most coverage being in the context of vulnerabilities. For example, in the AfD for Jason Parker (security researcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)

(2024), the article was not deleted. Editors there noted that repeated attribution in independent, reliable sources across multiple incidents demonstrated sufficient notability, even if no single profile piece existed. This situation is comparable. AxiomGaming (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nothing if not consistent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Parker (security researcher) (2nd nomination). Brandon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon has stated "I'm nothing if not consistent" (here) and previously "Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)

). In the second nomination for that article, he also argued: "discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)_(2nd_nomination).

The reasoning in this discussion seems different from those earlier AfDs on similar subjects, raising concerns about consistency in applying WP:SIGCOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#significant_coverage. Per WP:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, each case should be judged neutrally on the basis of independent sources and coverage, not on an editor's changing stance across discussions. AxiomGaming (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that the inclusion of this discussion in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions is directly supported by a reliable source. For example, TechCrunch explicitly confirmed my Maryland connection, stating: "and Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland." (TechCrunch, June 30, 2015) https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/. This demonstrates clear sourcing for the Maryland relevance of the article. AxiomGaming (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is significant coverage, not merely being mentioned in passing by a reliable source. Brandon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Coldwater, coverage of my work is significant - multiple reliable sources directly reported on vulnerabilities I discovered, not merely in passing. Several of these disclosures were substantial, involving adversaries potentially gaining access to the personal information of entire customer bases at companies such as MetroPCS, Verizon, and Charter. AxiomGaming (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates do not set precedent and no consensus outcomes with 2 participants are especially unpersuasive. Coverage of your work is not the threshold, there needs to be significant coverage of you. Your name and place of residence does not constitute a Wikipedia article. Brandon (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means more than a passing mention, but does not require that the subject be the sole focus of an article. In this case, multiple independent, reliable outlets (Vice, TechCrunch, Gizmodo, The Register, BuzzFeed, etc.) provided detailed reporting on vulnerabilities that directly attributed their discovery to the subject. This meets the standard for significant coverage under WP:BIO. AxiomGaming (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP article subject lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to WP:V claims beyond the discovery. Don't think this person counts for WP:BLP1E. Discovery used in a WP:UNDUE fashion with regards to notability. Nayyn (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means more than a passing mention, but does not require the subject to be the sole focus of an article. In this case, multiple independent and reliable outlets directly attributed discoveries to me:

The Register: "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit up until a patch was dropped."

https://www.theregister.com/2015/11/16/metropcs_patches_hole_that_opened_10_million_user_creds_to_plunder/

Vice: "Security researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh, who both work at secure payments firm Cinder, found the bug in mid-October."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/nasty-bug-in-metropcs-website-left-personal-data-of-subscribers-open-to-hacker/

TechCrunch: "Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. They have previously discovered basic but dangerous vulnerabilities at PayPal."

https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160318225931/https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/security-tools/wall-of-fame-honorable-mention

Yahoo News: "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit…"

https://tech.yahoo.com/general/article/2015-11-15-metropcs-site-exposed-subscriber-data.html

Fierce Wireless: "Report: MetroPCS customers' personal information had been vulnerable due to website security."

https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/report-metropcs-customers-personal-information-had-been-vulnerable-due-to-website-security

in addition to coverage in multiple independent reliable sources

The AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20181228020539/https://bugbounty.att.com/hof.php#archive

) explicitly lists Blake Welsh under the research group "Cinder." This confirms both individual recognition and organizational affiliation.
These are not trivial mentions they provide direct quotes, organizational context (Cinder), and secondary verification (e.g., TechCrunch on PayPal). This shows repeated, substantive coverage across multiple outlets, which meets the standard for significant coverage under WP:BIO. AxiomGaming (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: In my earlier comment I mistakenly presented the Yahoo News wording as a direct quote. To clarify, the article paraphrases that "Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh" found the vulnerabilities. AxiomGaming (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, WP:GNG is ultimately the core standard for biographical notability. It requires only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources-not that the subject be the exclusive focus. Here, the combination of TechCrunch, The Register, Vice, Yahoo News, Fierce Wireless, Vice, fastcompany, BuzzFeed and industry recognition (AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame, PayPal Wall of Fame) clearly demonstrates repeated, non-trivial coverage.

In two separate AfDs regarding another cybersecurity researcher (Jason Parker), editor Sohom emphasized: "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion (imo)." This was stated more than once, reinforcing that such sourcing is sufficient for WP:GNG in this field.

That same reasoning applies here. Multiple independent, reliable outlets have provided in-depth reporting, explicit attribution, and contextual detail. Other cybersecurity biographies with weaker or equivalent sourcing have been considered to meet WP:GNG, and applying the same standard consistently, this article does as well.

Furthermore, WP:V appears to be covered, as the cited articles contain verifiable facts and attribution. In addition to multiple independent news outlets, industry organizations themselves (AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame, PayPal Wall of Fame) have validated and listed me by name on their official websites. This provides independent verification alongside the press coverage, ensuring compliance with the verifiability requirement.

Additionally:

Per WP:RS, the outlets cited here TechCrunch, The Register, Vice, Yahoo News, and Buzzfeed, and Softpedia, PayPal and AT&T are all widely recognized as independent, mainstream, and reliable sources that regularly cover technology and cybersecurity. These publications have longstanding editorial oversight, are frequently cited across Wikipedia, and are routinely relied upon in existing articles about technology companies and cybersecurity professionals.
The fact that each of these outlets & companies themselves have Wikipedia entries further supports that the community has already evaluated them as notable, persistent, and generally reliable sources of news. If the community thought they were fundamentally unreliable, they likely wouldn’t be cited so widely, nor have standalone articles explaining their editorial roles and histories.

If coverage in these outlets were discounted, it would set an unusually high bar inconsistent with Wikipedia practice, since many comparable biographies of professionals in this field rely on the very same sources to establish notability. The use of these publications is therefore in line with WP:RS and with how Wikipedia has consistently treated reliable technology journalism & companies.

Given that these sources provided not just passing mentions but detailed coverage explicitly accrediting vulnerabilities and offering organizational/biographical detail, they meet both WP:RS and WP:GNG standards. AxiomGaming (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NRG (file format)

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

May not be notable and may contain original research Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of API simulation tools

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

This list article contains entirely original research with an unclear or arbitrary inclusion criteria. The article has a long history of included external links to different software providers, with few sources that could be considered reliable. Long history of promotional and possible SEO jacking on this article. Unclear inclusion material makes it difficult to update/improve. Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, . Requires regular cleanup to remove WP:SOAP and promotional materials by SPA accounts.

Declined Prod by single edit IP user. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
----

Hey, I have updated the content. Now, there are no external links to any of the websites I added. I also have one question: I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well?

Additionally, I have updated the sections that I had added earlier. I look forward to your guidance and feedback. 182.48.237.44 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the problems you document in this article. Could you explain where do you see these problems in the article? There is no original research as references are provided or can be made available. There is no advertising. This is not a directory but a comparison. And this is not a mirror or a repository of links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.203.95 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this because Wikipedia articles are not guides, or a repository of indiscriminate information collected by original research without reliable sources. This page is an example of both of these things. The collection of external links on this page, that are not independent of the subjects (see WP:NOTLINK), cannot be used to verify the claims made within. A main pillar of this encyclopedia is that articles must be verifiable and do not contain independent research.

There is a goal to edit the article to improvement, but because of the above, and the lack of clear inclusion criteria as to what tools make sense to have in this comparison, in my view it does not appear that it be edited to significance.

Nayyn (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have updated the content. Now, there are no external links to any of the websites I added. I also have one question: I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well?

Additionally, I have updated the sections that I had added earlier. I look forward to your guidance and feedback. QAExplorer (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in the content, I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well? 182.48.237.44 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As inherently against WP:NOTDIR. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikreator

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

No evidence of notability. All sources are from the creators of this tool. Fram (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for various obvious reasons WP:NOPAGE JMWt (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context--- The article written here is new and needs more time to reach 10000 words. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikikreator is a tool of Wikipedia, you obviously need an article on the matter. Moreover whoever is calling out that most of the references are from creator himself, he needs to check it out again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isolatedchimpanzee (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies against AI, it would be weird to then have a page describing a tool that does it.
Also it isn't a tool of wikipedia as far as I know in that it isn't a bot which is maintained and reviewed on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to give a good point but you are forgetting that much of assistance tool in Wikipedia are Ai powered, but you are right it is not "maintained" anymore. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this means. JMWt (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Let me try again. 1. You are not right to say that Wikipedia is against AI, because Wikipedia makes a great use of AI tools in day to day functions. And saying it does not will be hypocrisy (by definition). I am not sure if it is your opinion. 2. You are right WikiKreator no longer exist as online, however it was "that automatically expands short Wikipedia “stubs” into fuller articles by leveraging information". Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a tool "that......

Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this particular article is written for requested articles, so I do not consider it as promotion. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that makes any sense. JMWt (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no indication that this is notable, no independent coverage that I can find. Driftingdrifting (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG --tony 02:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IW (game engine)

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

Fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, lacking evidence of its importance or standalone notability. Many of the sources are trivial mentions in articles not about the engine, or unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Call of Duty; as the main technology behind the series, overlaps virtually completely. IgelRM (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Ward#Game engines seems a better target, there's already an existing section on the engine. --Mika1h (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect- to the Infinity Ward#Game engines I agree is a more sensible ATD to improve the context and add depth.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Infinity Ward#Game engines - we already have a good starting point for the article, and besides all future installments of the franchise, including the upcoming BO7, would be built on IW anyway. Dusty Kelpie (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

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

Pure promotional puff piece, likely generated by AI. The only good source here is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. Unfortunately, we have no room for any more brochures. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO with substantial independent coverage over decades, not just interviews: Wired (Feb 1997) on PrivNet/PGP; Forbes (July 1999) “The E-Gang”; Los Angeles Times (Apr 10, 2001) and Adweek (Apr 9, 2001) on eMusic’s sale to UMG (~$23–25m); Reuters (Sept 14, 2016) and Light Reading (Sept 14, 2016) on Amdocs’ acquisition of Vindicia. That is secondary, non-promotional sourcing across multiple career phases (so not WP:BIO1E). Any puffery is a cleanup Qrivas (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindicia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes source seems to be okay (apparently staff-written), although it is part of a listicle. But none of the other sources have independent non-trivial coverage. Many of these sources don't even mention Hoffman. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Linux

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

Article only cites non-independent sources. When searching for more, I did find ostensibly independent sources, but all the web ones failed WP:CORPTRIV: many of them were just product line changes/announcements or other "trivial" coverage, while the Google Books results were primarily about Asianux with Miracle Linux just being a namedrop; thus, the subject does not meet WP:NCORP. (And yes, I did check Japanese sources by using Firefox's built-in translator, which isn't great, but allowed me to assess them.) OutsideNormality (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. OutsideNormality (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / lean delete: I find some passing mentions (1 2) but I am unable to find any SIGCOV. Perhaps in Japanese. Likely delete. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was PROD'd so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOV (computers)

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

No refs on the page for a long time. Not seeing much to offer for consideration of the notability standards JMWt (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and merge selected content to Geoff Collyer:~~ It's a shame to lose this information but after a search on scholar, Google books, and Google news I'm forced to conclude it's not that notable. There's some discussion in this article but it's obscure (not well-cited, not in a major/top conference) and WP:PASSING. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Collyer even notable himself? I don't see any sources in his article that pass WP:NBIO. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Merge to C News then? Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure I'm clear on the relation between these. I guess that C News was the first to support the new indexing format NOV, but not the last (per your "Managing Usenet" source). Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~: There are at least a few paragraphs of significant coverage. This source seems useful, while this source is more borderline. There appears to be coverage here but I can only see it through snippet view. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds! That makes me feel better that this might be notable. That being said even with these, do we have enough coverage for a standalone article? Maybe merge to C News is clearer for readers. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Spencer, one of the authors of Managing Usenet, had previously partnered with Collyer to write C News. I'm not sure whether this compromises the source's independence.

On the other hand, XOVER should probably merged to this article, and there are more bits of coverage about it: [2], [3], [4]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge: selected content to Geoff Collyer seems sensible for me if current gathered available sources lacks SIGCOV, did find this from giganews, for fellow wikipedians more familiar with computers literature to check if its a solid source, it tells a bit of history of how the NOV came to be. Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:SPS corporate blog so not a reliable source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is just to note that Geoff Collyer now has an open deletion discussion, which is leaning delete also. So we may have a bit of a race condition here :) Merge to C News may be a viable alternative as discussed above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Geoff Collyer is not a possible Merge target article since it has been deleted. Is there another choice or should this article be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge to C News. I don't want to base an article on bits and pieces of source coverage. I was initially hesitant to merge because they are somewhat separate concepts but the article can connect them somewhat naturally, and in fact C News already contains discussion of NOV. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl.com

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. After thorough research, unable to locate significant, independent, reliable secondary sources providing substantial coverage of this company (or the sister/potential rename of JustAnswer). Current sources are primarily brief business journal mentions and lack the depth required for notability. While the company appears operational, this does not establish encyclopedic notability. The subject's connection to the notable Kurtzig family does not confer inherited notability per WP:INHERITED. Article has remained a stub with minimal development for many years, suggesting ongoing source availability issues. Most recent content dates to 2014, with no evidence of significant notable coverage in major publications. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Medicine, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The lead is totally weird for sure. The WSJ article by Deborah Gage looks like one source towards GNG, are there others? This Tech crunch source looks usable but routine business/investment coverage, so won't count towards GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As noted by Caleb Stanford above, the WSJ article plus the TechCrunch seems quite reasonable. Also, per WP:NTEMP, I can't support the deletion rationale based on the need for ongoing coverage since a lot of stuff on an encyclopedia won't make sense. WeWake (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about WP:NTEMP, FWIW, as I read it Uncountableinfinity (talk · contribs)'s primary concern is not the need for ongoing coverage, but whether there is "significant, independent, reliable secondary sources providing substantial coverage of this company (or the sister/potential rename of JustAnswer)" in the first place. I could be wrong though. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the contributions to the discussion, @Caleb Stanford: and @WeWake:.

You're correct, @Caleb Stanford: – my original statement could have been worded better. I should have said: I searched for additional coverage to support WP:GNG beyond the already cited content from 2014 and was unsuccessful. This information, paired with my assessment that the current citations fail to meet the criteria for WP:GNG, forms the basis for my AfD nomination.
Regarding the sources mentioned:
The WSJ article by Deborah Gage provides some coverage – I could be convinced this should count towards WP:GNG

The TechCrunch article, as @Caleb Stanford: noted, appears to be routine business/investment coverage
My concern remains that we lack the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. WP:MULTSOURCES specifically uses the example that "a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area" would need more robust sourcing than subjects from less documented contexts, precisely because if such companies are notable, we should expect coverage to be readily available.

I appreciate the clarification regarding WP:NTEMP from @WeWake: – you're absolutely right that ongoing coverage isn't required. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncountableinfinity, If I can add few more reference from WIRED (2025) ^[1] and an old 2013 reference that seems more than passing:^[2] — WeWake (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input and tracking down these references WeWake. I can't access the WIRED article, so can't add it in or review it for WP:SIGCOV, but I'm guessing with this there is likely enough. Thank you for the contribution. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Knibbs, Kate (January 22, 2025). "This New AI Search Engine Has a Gimmick: Humans Answering Questions". WIRED. Retrieved August 11, 2025.
^ Moran, Gwen (July 21, 2013). "Online Resource for Expert Advice Lines up More Than $50 Million in Financing". NBC News. Retrieved August 11, 2025.

Keep — Sources presented above and TechCrunch, Techcrunch, and Wired, and Huffpost would make the subject notable. RolandSimon (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HuffPost won't count due to WP:HUFFPOCON. The Wired article is quite brief. Seems a bit borderline. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[o732-1] Knibbs, Kate (January 22, 2025). "This New AI Search Engine Has a Gimmick: Humans Answering Questions". WIRED. Retrieved August 11, 2025.

[k767-2] Moran, Gwen (July 21, 2013). "Online Resource for Expert Advice Lines up More Than $50 Million in Financing". NBC News. Retrieved August 11, 2025.

[1]

[2]