Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Mushkin

Mushkin (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)

nonnotable business tagged since 2019. faisl WP:GNG. Independent refs cited are routine coverage of ownership change. --Altenmann >talk 18:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Colorado, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Please fix the typing/spelling mistakes in your nomination. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

JADE (programming language)

JADE (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not convinced that this passes notability. There are only 4 mentions on Google Books. And very limited coverage otherwise. MitYehor📘^^talk 12:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Object: Let's leave it alone for a month. No need to rush. I have added it to my to-do tabs (list) and will add references as I have time. --Jerryobject (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Its been an article for 20 years, this isn't rushed. You don't need to add sources to the article now just demonstrate they exist. Currently the only source in the article demonstrating notability is: Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This article should stay. There are a lot of computer languages. As computer science develops, and new techniques come into use, people design languages that make it easy to use a new technique or combination of techniques. This is good and natural. It is important to record these ideas and the languages they generate, even if those languages do not leap to wide popularity. The Jade article explains its purpose and is reasonably complete. WP is a very good place for Jade to be recorded. There do not need to be ongoing additions to the Jade article to justify its place in the universe of languages. I am not personally familiar with Jade. This is exactly the kind of article I want to see when I need to know what Jade is. I am the computer scientist Ted Kaehler. GoodExplainer (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Products, Computing, Software, and New Zealand. MitYehor📘^^talk 12:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Network delay

Network delay (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 propose merging to Lag (video games) because the articles cover the same concept. The lag article is incorrectly disambiguted to "video games" but the article covers more than just video games; both articles overlap to a point there is no meaningful difference in their conceptual scope. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
• Not unless the target article is moved to a general title; strangely, there is more to life than video games. Live streaming, finance, database-maintenance, remote desktop software, and potential applications involving control at a distance (remote surgery etc.) are also greatly influenced by network delay. So we need to keep an article with a title that doesn't limit the subject to gaming. Elemimele (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Elemimele I fully support moving lag (video games) to lag. The first sentence of that article that defines lag doesn't even mention games. The article does so later, but much of what it talks about is not games specific IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:55, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

  That would work! At the moment, the network delay article is very short and the lag one mostly about games, but the option you suggest makes the whole thing more future-proof. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge and rename of target article to Lag. Lag issues seem very similar to me in video games and, for example, live-streaming or videoconferencing; I don't see a reason to have two articles here. M kuhner (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and rename to Lag (computing). Shocksingularity (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. These two articles cover distinct subjects: Network delay is describing a key measurable property of network links, and Lag (video games) is talking specifically about the effects of delay in games and the mechanisms that are used to compensate for it. The first is a basic concept that would be included in any networking textbook (e.g.). The second is specific to games programming, and the techniques used there don't generalise to other latency-sensitive applications. Trying to cover the basic concept and the wide range of games-specific techniques related to it in one article would result in a pretty unbalanced article (and would be ignoring the completely different techniques used in other applications such as VOIP and time synchronisation). Adam Sampson (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and rename to Lag, perhaps Lag (networks)? There are plenty of studies suggesting the causes of latency being more than what internet companies can actually output. I also agree that the the target article primarily video game focused and should include video, web browser, and other program delays due to lag. Conyo14 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and rename per above. FaviFake (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and rename to Lag (network), Network delay or something along the way. --Zac67 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and rename specifically to Lag (computing) - I don't think any of the other proposed names are suitable. Too overloaded to rename without parenthetical, and anything with "network" but no "computing", "computer" is going to be too ambiguous with regard to other types on networks than computer networks. Maybe Lag (computer networks) would work but that feels overlong. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
• Question, do we want to include Round-trip delay in this duscussion. ~Kvng (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
• Comment, If we do it, I think the merge should go from Lag (video games) into Network delay. Network delay is a more general topic than network-imposed lag in video games. ~Kvng (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, Lag (video games) covers topics beyond network sources of lag. There are internal processing and I/O lags in video games even when there is no network involved and the existing article does appreciate this. It would be WP:ASTONISHing to non-gaming, IT-savvy readers to land at Lag (video games) when they want to learn about network performance. ~Kvng (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Lag (video games): and rename the article to be more general, per discussion. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 19:36, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Tools For Humanity

Tools For Humanity (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 previous AfD closed with decision to redirect article to Sam Altman#Worldcoin, although it has since been demerged back into article again by a temporary user.

I propose redirecting this article to World (blockchain) as this article's info would be better conveyed in the Sam Altman and World (blockchain) articles. Happily888 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Software. Happily888 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to World (blockchain). Nothing has changed since the previous nomination, so the result should be the same. Aneirinn (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Sramana Mitra

Sramana Mitra (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)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Cited sources are non-independent. Possible COI/UPE. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Economics, Engineering, Computing, Suspected AI-generated articles, India, West Bengal, United States of America, and Massachusetts. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning keep. Too many of the sources are interviews, but the fact that major publications like the San Francisco Examiner choose to interview her still speaks to notability. Other GNG-worthy sources about her or her organizations include:

  1. Guynn, Jessica (28 January 2008). "Yahoo's global reach still exceeds its grasp". The Los Angeles Times. p. 24.
  2. Mordock, Jeff (4 January 2016). "State picks three businesses for Silicon Valley program". The News Journal. pp. A4.

  Additionally, I found a review of one of her books:

  1. "Bootstrapping: Weapon of Mass Reconstruction". Home Business Magazine: The Home-Based Entrepreneur's Magazine. 16 (5). Home Business Magazine: 70. 1 September 2009. ISSN 1092-4779.

  pburka (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Keep this article is directly about her. I found more on ProQuest , , that can help meet WP:BASIC criteria. Two interviews in secondary sources should help too , . Thanks, Hawfinch52 (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  Note - Hawfinch52 has only 50 edits logged and has received numerous warnings in regard to potential undisclosed paid editing. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 04:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Although it is true that there is some concerns about UPE, but overall, sources looks significant and secondary enough to be passed on as a keep. BengalMC ^talk 03:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a lack of significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. To pass WP:NAUTHOR one needs multiple book reviews. Aneirinn (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. To pass WP:NAUTHOR one needs to be author of multiple notable books. One book with reviews doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, Interviews are not counted towards GNG. And this is blacklisted: source. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:57, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Her business impact is sufficient for notability, e.g. One Million by One Million, starting three companies, as well as "LinkedIn’s Top 10 Influencers in 2015." — ERcheck (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  The source is not independent. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:09, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Some shocking keep arguments here. Being listed as a LinkedIn Top 10 influencer 11 years ago is not an indication of notability per WP:NBIO. Lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
• Keep fails WP:AUTHOR but clear WP:BASIC, which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. I ran some searches and InfoWorld ,Fast Company appeared. Note: I didn't ran any search on newspapers.com. ~2026-59396-24 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

  Both sources are interviews. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:08, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: Note to editors advocating keep here that they've assumed the burden of LLMPRVOBJ if the article is understood to contain LLM generated content, prior to any affirmative determination in favor of retention.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  Has anyone suggested this page was written by an LLM? This seems to be a new claim. pburka (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Pburka It is not, check the listing tags.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand your note, then. Why have you raised the issue of LLM usage? pburka (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  Once again, Pburka, check the listing tags. If you’d done so, you would see that it is not a new claim.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  I've been participating in AfDs for over twenty years and I've never heard of "listing tags" before. Yours is the first comment in the discussion to mention LLMs. Please elaborate. pburka (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Economics, Engineering, Computing, Suspected AI-generated articles, India, West Bengal, United States of America, and Massachusetts.

  ​

  CSGinger14 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  Oh! You mean deletion sorting lists. Those are used to attract attention from interested editors. If the nominator wishes to add LLM use to the deletion rationale they need to say so explicitly, and provide some evidence. Editors can't be expected to infer rationale from sorting lists! pburka (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  ​That’s reasonable. My point was that given the potential it’s the responsibility of those advocating keep per LLMPRVOBJ to ensure that there’s no trace of LLM generated content before it could clear on notability grounds.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  This would be a Kafkaesque burden. Until someone presents a claim and evidence of LLM use, nobody has any obligation to "fix" a non-existent problem. pburka (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  Fair. @TurquoiseGoose, care to provide elaboration?

  CSGinger14 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  I honestly don't remember why I put that in suspected AI sorting. Maybe some WP:AISIGNS? But it's really not anything obvious now I look at it. I think it might be better if we just ignore the AI tag for now. My bad. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:57, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

• Keep At least three refs are good with indepth coverage that make me think it passes GNG. Davidindia (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

WebAuthn

WebAuthn (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)

Client to Authenticator Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Universal 2nd Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I propose merging these three articles into Passkey. This might not look like an obvious proposal, so let me explain:

The passkey article now lists three examples. WebAuthn, resident key and U2F. I don't think that anyone actually calls resident keys "passkeys" in practice. U2F is a predecessor specification to WebAuthn/FIDO2.

So that leaves us with only WebAuthn as the standard implementation of passkeys. I think our WP:READERS are best served by one article on the topic instead of having a relatively short topic on the general subject and then separate larger articles for the different specs (which then also summarize the passkey branding like in this WebAuthn article).

I'd also like to merge Client to Authenticator Protocol into the passkeys article, as well as Universal 2nd Factor, which was retroactively renamed to CTAP1. Essentially, I believe passkeys are the WP:COMMONNAME for WebAuthn + CTAP2. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• Merge all per nom, too much WP:OVERLAP. Even if these were independently notable, they're all integral parts of the implementation of passkeys, so it's best to explain them together per WP:PAGEDECIDE to aid the reader. Plus, the last two articles also qualify for WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, the WebAuthn specification has had enough content and standards jousting to write it's own separate article. CTAP should merged with WebAuth since there isn't a lot of seperate discussion about that specification outside of the context of WebAuth. I'm on the fence about U2F since there has been some limited discussion about it's security properties, however, I can see it being merged into Passkey or it can have it's own article. Passkey is in itself a pop-culture amalgamation of a bunch of technologies with no clear alignment with any specification. It needs it's own separate article that at a high level summarizes each technology in layman's terms. Trying to jam three articles worth of technical information into one article is a recipe for disaster. -- Sohom (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it is a recipe for disaster. I believe a good Wikipedia article has both layman terms and technical terms, so multiple audiences can learn from an article.

  > amalgamation of a bunch of technologies with no clear alignment with any specification.

  I think it is quite clear: the tech is WebAuthn + CTAP2. Passkeys are the popular name for that combination. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  @PhotographyEdits Google's own interface conflates U2F (Security key) with "Passkeys". Similarly, Apple's implementation requires you to be physically on a Mac to be able add a key (presumably to be able to perform some additional checking). Discord calls both U2F and modern WebAuthn/FIDO security keys. There is no standardization and the implementation varies so much that you need to read the spec (or a summary of the spec) to figure out what you are doing . This mess is why I think the Passkey article should talk about this mess and describe/introduce the different technologies and then we can have standalone articles on the largest/notable technologies if the user wants to get into the weeds. Sohom (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  I definitely agree that this article should talk about the mess regarding the different names!

  But I think that merging the other specs into this article does not result in an unwieldy large article, it would still be manageable.

  The current WebAuthn article has a problem: it is too technical. I agree with that critique, but if we are going to add a laymen explanation there, we would be duplicating the Passkeys article. I still think that a merge of both U2F, WebAuthn and CTAP2 into passkeys is the best option. PhotographyEdits (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Defense strategy (computing)

Defense strategy (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)

Rather vague article, borderline WP:GNG. Largely overlaps with the topic of information security, could maybe be merged as a WP:ATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Origiginal research / WP:SYNTH. --Altenmann >talk 19:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Tudor IT Process Assessment

Tudor IT Process Assessment (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 seem to meet the WP:GNG. The sources certainly have WP:SIGCOV, but I doubt their independence. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the first nomination from 2015 ended with "no consensus" (nobody opposed deletion at all, but there was only one actual participant beyond the then-nominator), obviously not enough to resolve the tag for potential GNG failure that was placed around the same time. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:35, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Global surveillance and journalism

Global surveillance and journalism (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)

WP:SYNTH article, sources don't talk about this topic as a whole. Sections could maybe be merged, but linked articles already contain content written here. I think deletion is the most sensible path forward here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Computing. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: complex AfD. Contents seem to FORK of Snowden and Assange pages. I would rather vote delete than merge or redirect. Please ping me upon further discussion.Dylan Reed (Ping me) 15:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete is fine with me. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete then. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Merge any content that is not a DUP, as we need to ensure we're preserving relevant encyclopedic content. Namely, the Guardian segment needs to find a home elsewhere; otherwise, most content concerning Snowden, Manning, Assange is likely already discussed in greater detail at the parent pages (but we should make sure of that fact ahead of time).

  CSGinger14 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  Content seem to be covered in:

  • Espionage_Act_of_1917#21st_century
  • United States v. Manning
  • Alan_Rusbridger#WikiLeaks_and_Snowden_disclosures
  • David Miranda
  • Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

  About the last two sections I'm not entirely sure, might not be worth merging. The section about the Press Freedom Index is about one specific version of their report, seems undue weight in their main article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge? If merge -- to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:09, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

As the nominator I'm still in favor of deleting, but I guess we need more input from others. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 00:20, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Pie in the Sky (game engine)

Pie in the Sky (game engine) (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 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)
• Weak keep – Seems to meet WP:GNG: A few paragraphs here in a magazine, a few chapters in a game-making book (apparently several editions and publishers from author Luke Ahearn that include significant content about this software), and a few more passing mentions in trade mags of the time that I didn't look through carefully. Article should be reduced to a stub; I see very little worth keeping in the current article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

  Good find. I note these sources seem to call it the Game Creation System? Is it that the engine's called the same thing as the company, but the tool to create games using the engine is called the Game Creation System? That's a little confusing. VRXCES (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  A game-making book is quite far from WP:GNG. IgelRM (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:57, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient sigcov. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

XSLT elements

XSLT elements (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)

Poorly referenced violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, does not appear notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 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)

The above either is AI generated, or needs AI copyedit to actually be understandable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 22 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:

Dan Olteanu https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/dan.olteanu/tutorials/xslt1.pdf

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Is this poorly referenced? Yes. Is this poorly constructed? Somewhat. Is the topic notable? Yes. XSLT is a computer language with whole books discussing XSLT elements (the building blocks of that language). This is essentially a list of those elements and is a list article. Given that a quick look in google scholar and google books per WP:BEFORE shows that these elements are discussed as a group or set in many published materials it passes WP:NLIST. We absolutely can have an article on this topic. I can't see how we can cover computer languages if we can't in some way list the elements of those languages in the same way we would cover the English alphabet as part of covering the English language.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the topic meet WP:NLIST to warrant a list of elements in addition to the article on XSLT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to XSLT. Notability aside, the current content is inappropriate as Wikipdedia is not a manual. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:48, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you think this is a manual?

  I don’t see how it instructs a user or could be seen as a user guide or owner’s manual etc.

  I’d argue ‘not a manual’ refers more to things like tutorials, as I mentioned before:

  Forgot to include this link to the XSLT 1.0 Tutorial by D. Olteanu at Oxford Department of Computer Science:

  Dan Olteanu https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/dan.olteanu/tutorials/xslt1.pdf

  Compare and contrast with this encyclopedic mention

  ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)