Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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 WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Computing

[edit]

Quicknet

[edit]
Quicknet (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 also not found any WP:RS Clenpr (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaChip (controversy)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
AlphaChip (controversy) (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)

This article is a POV fork on a topic that is covered very well at Google Brain#Controversies.

It was created and subsequently expanded with obvious intent to serve as a POV fork by Qq8's sockpuppets (now mostly blocked); Qq8 has openly acknowledged that he is Igor Markov, a prominent AlphaChip opponent, whose papers are now cited 14 times in the article. (More than half the article's current content is still a product of Qq8 socks.)

I was encouraged to open this AfD by Vanamonde93 while acknowledging my own disclosed CoI; they assured me that this AfD should not be procedurally closed on this basis. LovinLifer (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no opinion on the article itself but I would encourage a substantive discussion here, as the closer of the previous AfD. There have been revelations of sockpuppetry since that discussion that should receive attention, even if the result does not change. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the evidence here? Can you specify the user names of the sock puppets, and show what text they contributed? How did you come up with the figure of half the text? Also, I followed the link where you claim Qq8 is Igor Markov, and it was not at all obvious to me (It appeared he was defending clock tree synthesis as a separate article). The standard of proof should be particularly high here, as you are (as you state) paid by a company that is at least partially based on the technology criticized here. Particularly as this is the third time you have tried to delete this article, I'd suggest a speedy administrative close until and unless these accusations can be documented. LouScheffer (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator has provided that information. The link attached to Qq8 has openly acknowledged shows an edit summary posted by Qq8 and signed as Igor Markov. This certainly supports the idea that Qq8 is Igor Markov. (It's not proof--Qq8 could be falsely claiming to be Markov--but it's as close as we're likely to get.) The user names of the sock puppets are at the SPI case linked in the nomination statement. The text contributed by each sockpuppet can be worked out from the article history--it is a lot of work and I personally don't feel nominator was obliged to go that far. If you need to see it, though, ping me and I can do it. It's a matter of objective fact (matching the SPI case against the article history) and it shouldn't matter who does it. M kuhner (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "The text contributed by each sockpuppet can be worked out from the article history--it is a lot of work and I personally don't feel nominator was obliged to go that far." However, the nominator is proposing a fairly drastic action - deleting a page. It's up to him to provide at least *some* concrete evidence for his accusations. While certainly not exhaustive, I could not find *any* contribution to the page in question by *any* of the aliases in the sock puppet page. (Update: 'Bob the Guilder', at 7.2% of the text, is indeed in the sock puppet list. See below.)
    Update: using the Wikipedia tool 'Who Wrote That', I have found only one link to the names mentioned in the sock puppet page. It appears that the article was created by "~2026-54236-5", and this text represents 39.7% of the current article. But I did not find this name in the list of sock puppets. Next was myself, "LouScheffer", at 31.2% of the article. Next is "Cdmx545467" at 8.2%. This name was not in the sock puppet file either. "Bob the Guilder" is at 7.2% (he is in the sock puppet list, but lists arguments on both sides), then lots of small contributions, such as "Twag45" at 2.3%. Interestingly (at least to me) there is only one sentence left from the original article which has not been modified by subsequent edits. So the article has been subject to significant editorial screening. LouScheffer (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the detailed analysis. It does give a different perspective on nom's statements. M kuhner (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @M kuhner: For proper context, the article was edited significantly by six Markov socks, not just one: three confirmed socks (article creator SFsticated, Bob the Guilder, and Twag45) and three other editors who are clearly part of the same group (Cdmx545467, Key Steakholder, and ~2026-54236-5). asilvering, the CheckUser who reviewed the Qq8 evidence, may be able to shed further light. Regardless, none of this gets to the more important point, which is that the article is a POV fork in both intent and outcome. The information is presented appropriately for an encyclopedia at Google Brain#Controversies and should not be forked at AlphaChip (controversy). LovinLifer (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Education, Artificial intelligence, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the CU who handled this SPI case, I agree that this article was created as a deliberate POV fork. The sockmaster who created it, who I have no reason to believe is not Igor Markov, appears to have deliberately created the article AlphaChip (company), on a non-notable Russian software company, specifically in order to force the title of this article to AlphaChip (controversy). The same sockmaster rather spuriously added DEC Alpha as "AlphaChip" in order to create the dab, AlphaChip. See further discussion of this at User talk:asilvering#AlphaChip. This is part of his years-long program of promoting himself, Nova Ukraine, and various colleagues, while attempting sabotage against various people and initiatives he finds disagreeable, including a number of Googlers. It is one of the most insidious cases of deliberate sockpuppetry contrary to our goals as an encyclopedia that I have come across in my time at SPI. LouScheffer, I appreciate that you have made significant contributions to this article, but I think the best move here is for this page title to Redirect to Google Brain#Controversies. Anything useful could be copied from the page history here to that article. We should then also delete the dab page, which is of no use to anyone. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, this article is in no way a POV fork. The controversy is real, notable, well supported by references, and open to any conflicting evidence (as supported by references, of course). The main point of the controversy, that the claims of AlphaChip are not supported by the evidence, is not a fringe viewpoint. I can reasonably be considered a subject matter expert in this area (lifetime achievement award, etc.), and know almost all the relevant players. From this I can state that the feeling that the claims are not backed by evidence is nearly universal in (non Ricursive) experts in the field, and not remotely fringe. In large part this skepticism arises because, if AlphaChip's claims are true, there is an easy way for them to prove it - simply show better results on public benchmarks than competing algorithms. This is a completely standard procedure in the field, every new placer has competed this way for decades, and a positive result here would end the controversy immediately. Yet AlphaChip has not published such comparisons, which leads to the general skepticism. For those who believe otherwise, I would ask what references you would use, and what experts would you cite, for a hypothetical article with an opposite POV? LouScheffer (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AutoShade

[edit]
AutoShade (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)

Non notable graphic design technology. Article has no sources and one external link. GNews search shows nothing beyond references to the Wikipedia article itself. If deletion is deemed not necessary, perhaps a redirect to AutoCAD will do. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CIGESA

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
CIGESA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains primary sources only, I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this company in secondary sources. The Catalonian Wikipedia article doesn't appear to have any either. If there are sources in Catalonian that I was not able to find, of course they can be included in this discussion and ideally added to the article. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 09:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

--Mcapdevila (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Secondary sources added
  • 14 Secondary sources have been added

--Mcapdevila (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV in any of the sources. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 11:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as it currently exists has fewer secondary sources than it appears to: the two Munoz-Cobo 1994 are the same (though they strangely disagree on the author's first name), the three Subirats 2006 are the same (though one inexplicably in English), and "Fent funcionar el país" appears as both a journal and a book (it seems to be the latter) total of 7 times. Author, it would help if you cleaned up the referencing. Could you point out the three best secondary sources for independent, reliable, substantial coverage, please? M kuhner (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firejail

[edit]
Firejail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are all other Wikis, unreliable, and/or tutorials, nothing that meets WP:42. Meadowlark (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Meadowlark (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm seeing enough coverage (and over a long-enough time period) to justify keeping this article, although the article needs significant cleanup. A 2015 cover story in Linux Magazine,[1] a conference paper,[2] two paragraphs of description in another conference paper[3], some discussion in this cited but not yet published pre-print,[4] and another conference paper.[5] Less useful sources: undergraduate thesis[6], some security vulnerability reports.[7][8]Suriname0 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To add a small bit of editorializing: this is not a slam-dunk keep. The best sources imo are the Linux Magazine article and the CompSysTech conference paper, which is why I voted keep. I don't see any academic mentions in the best venues; for example, any discussion in ACM SIGSAC, IEEE S&P, or USENIX papers. Hopefully others can surface sourcing from more reliable publishers. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schürmann, Tim. "The Jailer". Linux Magazine. Retrieved 2026-06-05.
  2. ^ Siebel, Nils T. (2023). On the Use of Process Containers for Running Vulnerable Programs more Securely. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. ISBN 978-3-88579-731-9.
  3. ^ Laurén, Samuel; Rauti, Sampsa; Leppänen, Ville (2017-06-23). "A Survey on Application Sandboxing Techniques". Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies. CompSysTech '17. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 141–148. doi:10.1145/3134302.3134312. ISBN 978-1-4503-5234-5.
  4. ^ Yang, Fangfei; Vahldiek-Oberwagner, Anjo; Tsai, Chia-Che; Kaoudis, Kelly; Dautenhahn, Nathan (2024-06-11). "Making 'syscall' a Privilege not a Right". arXiv.org. Retrieved 2026-06-05.
  5. ^ Autefage, Vincent (May 2022). "Firejail : Le couteau suisse du confinement sous Linux". JRES 2022: 14èmes Journées Réseaux. 14. Marseille, France: Renater: Article 31.
  6. ^ Hessel, Hampus; Rydberg, Albin (2018). "Sandboxing - En fallstudie om sandboxlösningar för ARM-baserade embedded-system". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ^ "NVD - CVE-2022-31214". nvd.nist.gov. Retrieved 2026-06-05.
  8. ^ Roman Fiedler. "Firejail: Insecure Use of OverlayFS as Sandbox File System".
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASUKITE 00:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, argumentation seems reasonable. Audriusa (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh (talk! sign!) 19:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Computing proposed deletions (PROD)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1361053695"