This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Computing|sig=~~~~}} 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.
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:
Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the majority of the article is either primary sourced or simply talking about the games made with the engine (WP:NOTINHERITED). Back when it was first created, sources were unreliable or irrelevant, and this hasn't really changed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The concept/term is from a single source which seems to be the 2014 Brunnert et al one, and the article is essentially a summary of that paper. The core sources are that paper and its German-language version, all other citations are general software performance engineering and application performance management literature that, as far as I can tell don't even use this term. Couldn't find any independent reliable sources that discuss the concept, so fails WP:GNG Suggestion is to delete, or redirect to Application performance managementIndrasBet (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: there was a declined PROD shortly after it was published to mainspace in 2014 (passing AfC, but 12 years later that might not mean much); this means we won't be soft deleting should it come to that. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet NORG. Previously draftified for notability and potential COI/UPE, then moved back without addressing the issues. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
DeleteWP:TOOSOON The company doesn't even have a product on the market yet. Two suspected involved editors have been warned, and they should be careful about WP:SALT. 23:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)TheDeafWikipedian (talk)
Delete — per nom. Two sources, both essentially founder- or company-supplied, so WP:NCORP isn't met. EmilyR34 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The author of this article has been blocked for UPE. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 06:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
All the coverage is one week in July 2025. Co-founding a company is WP:NOTINHERITED. The page was draftified on 26 August 2026 for needing more sources, and on 15 October the creator moved it back to mainspace after an edit that removed the draft template and changed nothing else. SOFILUIZA//COMMS 11:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The coverage isn't limited to July 2025. Forbes covered him in August 2024 (Next Billion-Dollar Startups), and Analytics India Magazine covered his role in Google Antigravity in November 2025 (link). He presented Antigravity in the Google I/O 2026 keynote (video), so his prominence has continued beyond the Windsurf deal. Jeremiah Editorial Lee (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The Forbes above is by Staff, but is a brief "get to know" the person, among a list of many. There is more coverage about the various companies rather than focus on this person. I don't see notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Forbes lists don't establish notability and other coverage appears to be centered around a WP:1E. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to malware because pretty much all malware is made for automating cybercrime, this is not really a separate category setting it apart from other malware. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, frankly these articles are unnecessarily confused in their coverage. This particular article starts "Crimeware (as distinct from spyware and adware)" implying that crimeware is distinct from spyware, and promptly goes on to describe key-loggers and other such, which are also described as spyware in the spyware article. The Malware article meanwhile defines itself as "is any software intentionally designed to cause disruption or destruction to a computer, server, client, or computer network, leak private information, gain unauthorized access to information or systems, deprive access to information, or interfere with the user's computer security and privacy without their knowledge.", and then goes on to include adware, which includes software that openly offers itself to willing "victims" on a you-can-use-me-for-free-if-you-don't-mind-me-showing-you-adverts business model, hardly intentionally disruptive without the user's knowledge! At the moment we seem to have a whole set of articles on undesirable software, all covering heavily-overlapping stuff, with poor adware feeling like it mistakenly accepted an invitation to the wrong sort of party. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Slight merge, or possibly just redirect. This term was a freshly coined neologism when the article was created; 21 years later, it's clear that it never caught on. I don't think there's much that needs to be merged here; malware already appears to cover all the same ground. Omphalographer (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
"Merge selectively". My concern is that there may not be anything worth merging; this article is much less developed than the target. Omphalographer (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to hacker because it's pretty much the same subject, see WP:POVFORK. Both (can) have an interest in security measures, their weaknesses and programming in general. Both white hats and black hats can take pride in their programming skill. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Partially, I'd say. Content from this article should be merged all over the place in the target page, but we can figure out the specifics later. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a heavily COI (possibly self) authored WP:BLP which, despite some efforts of other editors, remains mainly in the same state it was when the COI editor !finished it (diff).
There are a few reasons to delete, chiefly WP:RESUME, WP:AUTO, and WP:BASIC. However, it is WP:REFBOMBed as well; therefore, I feel it helpful in establishing my contention to at least partially fisk the references, which I will do later.
There are fundamentally two events for which this person might be notable: he was an author of ERC-721, and he created an app to see when SEPTA will come. Neither of these inherently establish notability, since while he was involved in these things, these activities have not given rise to WP:SIGCOV of William Entriken as a person.
Some references fisked:
Technical.ly states in its own editorial policy that it is a service to increase news coverage of companies and founders, and therefore has questionable independence.
I don't have access and I'm not going to ILL this; it's about NFTs and would not establish notability
does not mention William
does not mention William
passing mention of William as an author of ERC-721 among others
Article about the origins of NFTs that does not mention William at all; if anything this goes against notability
Discussion of technical.ly above
local news blog that relies entirely on interviews with William for its source; therefore, this is a dependent source
Discussion of technical.ly above and also seems to rely on interviewing William as its main source
literally self-published, and should not be used in a WP:BLP as a source at all
dead link, found at , does not mention William
reports in no depth that another outlet reported that his app exists
interview with William about his app; therefore, dependent
The remainder follows from the theme: academic papers about NFTs that do not treat William biographically, self-published sources, and literally a citation to a vanity press book listing him as the author where he ran Orwell's 1984 through a perl script.
I believe this is an autobiography because the only edits made by the creator, User:Codeconjurer777, are within and defensive of topics that the subject of this biography is primarily interested in, following a handful about video games.
All of this taken together indicates that this is not an appropriate subject for an article; WP:BEFORE search turns up sources already treated here and nothing new. FalconK (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete does not pass GNG Good day—RetroCosmostalk 02:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't make BIO. Khalitate (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to ERC-721 There seems to be some coverage of him in that context. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Although they have done some solid technical work, there is nothing here to base a BLP article on. I went through and removed much of the non-RS and obvious promo (it does seem to be an autobiography), but there are no sources that I could find that were substantially about him and also independent. I also did an ebsco search and he gets short quotes in articles, but no focused articles about him. I don't mind a redirect to ERC-721 if folks think it would be useful. He is mentioned there. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I see that when I started the article in 2004, the title was "Interactive theorem proving". If it were still called that, the case for a merge would be stronger, because "interactive theorem proving" is a method of getting a "computer-assisted proof". In fact, I think the case for a merge is not that strong, because "proof assistant" is a type of software, which is a tool applicable to "computer-assisted proof". It looks to me more like we shall need summary-style (WP:SUMMARY) to pull this whole area together. As we know, rapid major developments are happening - see e.g. mathematics and artificial intelligence and list of mathematical discoveries by artificial intelligence. The whole area is fluid. What we could try to decide right now is what should be the top-level article. I would say computer-assisted proof would be a good choice: right now AI applications are most spectacular for proofs and counterexamples, though machines may also become good at conjecturing (say). In short, don't merge proof assistant, but put a brief proof assistant section in computer-assisted proof with a {{main|proof assistant}} link. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: The proof assistant page is about using formal verification tools for math, while computer-assisted proof is more general and also includes using computers for brute-force search in proofs and doing mathematics from numerical experiments. With recent developments, it could also include using LLMs to generate natural language proofs. So I can see the argument for making proof assistant a section of computer-assisted proof, but I think proof assistants are significant enough on their own to warrant their own page, since even individual proof assistants like Lean (proof assistant) and Agda have their own pages.
Also, the proof assistant article has a number of issues and probably needs significant cleanup, but that's a topic for a different discussion. Jon Daker (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Jon Daker's comment above. This title refers to an encyclopedic topic that is significantly more specific than the merge target and would be lost in the proposed merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just unambiguously advertising material for a company with little to no coverage. The references section with just 3 articles from industry-specific outlets, does not justify this level of detail about the company, or an article at all. (The 4th one is company's own website). 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 15:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article not eligible for soft deletion; PRODed in 2009 and 2007 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, as this is just blatant PROMO. Sources are also self-published, which fails SIGCOV. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
It cites W3C standards published as recently as 2021. Most notable, IMHO.
Further regression will be caused by breaking the consistency with HTML element and losing specific detail that helps a reader’s understanding. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not AI, so please consider my manual copy edit first?
I oppose deletion for “does not appear notable” because, IMHO, how can’t publications from active W3C Workgroup be? They’ve even won 3-4 Emmy’s.
Also, most other W3C Workgroups are recognized as notable enough to have their own Wiki. Removing this one in particular would make it all inconsistent. Thereby worse.
Also, Google just (2026) finished deleting all XSLT libs / references from Chrome. Right when their Chrome Platform Status indicated XSLT rose to historical [click it in the graph ahead ] peaks in ‰ of page loads.
In the same vein, what’s up with deleting this for not a tutorial when ‘HTML Elements’ are allowed to supplement ‘HTML’ with brief descriptions about actual functionality? That would also worsen Wikipedia because it’ll create internal incoherency’s, bias, etc. Worse still. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Forgot to include this link to the XSLT 1.0 Tutorial by D. Olteanu at Oxford Department of Computer Science:
Compare and contrast with this encyclopedic mention ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I hate AI, but fired op the latest Apple Intelligence with the beta firmware that I was allowed in to bla bla.
Proof-read had no notes, locally and private cloud compute. ChatGPT wasn’t queried.
Rewrite resulted in [AI reduction]
It cites W3C standards published as recently as 2021. Most notable, IMHO. Further regression will be caused by breaking the consistency with HTML elements and losing specific detail that helps a reader’s understanding. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Article has no references, and from what I can tell it has been unreferenced since it was created. I was unable to find any sources that satisfy WP:GNG. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – unsourced since creation (WP:V, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy: I think this can be moved to draft space to add proper sources or an editor can work on it now to add some, this seems like a useful article to be simply deleted for lack of sources. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - I have added two sources to improve the article for now. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is too old to draftify. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I updated the tag. No opinion about the subject itself. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Archive file as an WP:ATD. Apparently, the subject is mostly discussed in the context of archiving. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 23:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Advanced Access Content System because the article seems to be a very overblown example of WP:RECENTISM (for the time). While the topic passes WP:GNG, it fails WP:MERGEREASON #2 and #4, and possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to a lack of evidence of lasting effects (newly printed discs simply swapped keys). With the "background" section being entirely comprised of an explanation of AACS, the article can easily be trimmed down to a couple of paragraphs without undue weight and placed in a section about the publication of the key. Something similar probably applies to Free Speech Flag, but I will hold off on that to see what consensus here is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. A lot of fluff but not much actual content. FaviFake (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging Free Speech Flag and AACS encryption key controversy, as the AACS page is more about the technology regarding AACS and how AACS works. The encryption key controversy page is more about the legal takedowns and Digg, which lead to the development of the Free Speech Flag. Merging the AACS encryption key controversy and Free Speech Flag pages makes more sense than trying to put an internet protest into a technical page. ~2026-53526-35 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Given that they are both highly redundant, a merge between them won't solve any of the issues this page is facing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose merge – the nomination concedes the topic passes WP:GNG, and 85 citations including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times cover the 09 F9 revolt as an event in its own right, not as a footnote to the encryption standard. Kukuryza (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge - For the same reason as user Kukuryza, the topic passes GNG. And searching Google Scholar, the case is still used as an example of the Streisand Effect. Christian75 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Source assessment table? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge This one blew up just a little bit too thoroughly.:) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
That seems like an WP:ITSPOPULAR defense. Also responding to the above, passing GNG is not an argument against merge, only deletion. This is a merge discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
That would put too much weight on the controversy in the parent article. It was a multi-phase controversy and there was lots of reliable coverage. Leaving it all split to a separate article leaves the assorted weights where they should be. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that notability is required for a standalone page, but it is not sufficient for one, per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:PAGEDECIDE. If you oppose the proposed merge, please present a valid argument on why readers would be better served by seeing the controversy on a separate page, rather than alongside the article about the standard. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 18:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Selective merge. The "controversy" is explained in excessive detail here, but is really an aspect of the underlying security standard. Sandstein 18:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Adding to my previous comment ("I propose merging Free Speech Flag...into a technical page."), merging the AACS article and the controversy article would be like merging the Boston Tea Party into a page for 18th century British taxation laws. ~2026-53526-35 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
No, it very much would not. The Boston Tea Party had earth-shattering levels of long-term impact, such as being one of the events that led to the American Revolution. This controversy had extremely short-term impact lasting until they simply replaced the encryption key. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Sure, the AACS key controversy wasn't as earth-shatteringly important as the Boston Tea Party, but it set a legal precedent that simply publishing a number is not illegal, contrary to what the AACS LA and other DRM advocates said. Still incredibly important. ~2026-53526-35 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
oppose merge.
the article does not fall under MERGEREASON #2 or #4, as it does not have any sufficient redundancy with the AACS article, and the technical context of AACS is unnecessary to understand the controversy; the "Background" section takes up less than a third of the article's content.
the article, flatly, does not fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE: it is not a summary, collection of data, or any other such content; it is a detailed examination of a timeline of events, impact, and multiple perspectives responding to the controversy
this article has more citations than the AACS article itself, and holds perspectives from (at least) news media, the AACS LA, Wikipedia, and IP lawyers. if you truly believe that the article "can easily be trimmed down to a couple of paragraphs", without substantially reducing the weight that should be placed on the thing AACS is most well known for, then you should be able to easily demonstrate such a reduction of the content in a user page and show us that this page can be merged. .qwertydotplus (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@.qwertydotplus: Here's my shortening of it: User:Zxcvbnm/sandbox. You are free to note anything drastically important I have left out, but I think it makes it clear just how much it can be trimmed down. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I should also note that there are a LOT of duplicate references. It could probably be trimmed down to 1/3 of them or fewer, even if the article is kept standalone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
you've omitted one of the parts that makes this controversy historically relevant, which is the legal perspectives around whether a number can be illegal for copyright reasons. .qwertydotplus (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
actually there's two different legal points that make this controversy relevant even today:
whether posting the key is illegal
whether hosting user generated content including the key is illegal
in general my stance is there's no way to merge the controversy into the article on AACS without placing undue weight and making the AACS article too long, and there's no good way to trim the content of the controversy without removing important historical and legal context that make the controversy still relevant. .qwertydotplus (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
you could add a summary section to the AACS article that links back to the larger article on the controversy, but i just don't see a path for the larger article to be sufficiently condensed for a merge to meet size and weight requirements. .qwertydotplus (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
"Legal perspectives around whether a number can be illegal for copyright reasons" is already explained at illegal number, it does not have to be reiterated here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
"legal perspectives around whether an encryption key is illegal for copyright reasons" are not mentioned in detail at illegal number
"legal perspectives around whether hosting user-generated content including the key is illegal for copyright reasons" is not explained at illegal number
even if both of those were explained independently at illegal number, that would not be sufficient for removing mention of them here, because the legal perspectives on the AACS encryption key controversy must be given due weight in an article or section about the AACS encryption key controversy, regardless of whether they are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. see WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
Zero sigcov outside of a single PCWorld source. Flickr is a primary source while user reviews of a download does not establish notability. Go D. Usopp(talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I tried looking for "Walt Disney font" as an alternative, not much comes up other than download sites. Even the sourcing now in the article isn't enough (it's also orange per Cite Highlighter, so of marginal notability). Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 03:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I could change my mind if the article gets expanded on. [<i>lcp</i>] (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
