Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

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:

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: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.

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

watch

Computing

Cameleon (programming language)

Cameleon (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)

Fails WP:GNG. None of the independent sources here (not authored by Tariel or Sévricourt) have significant coverage of the programming language; they just briefly mention it or cite the original paper. The original paper has only 4 citations on Google Scholar. DePRODed in 2014.

Note: there are several unrelated academic projects also named "Cameleon", such as CAMELEON Reference Framework, "CAMELEON project", etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Beye

Beye (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; the only mention I found in a possibly-reliable independent source is (Packt has dubious reliability), and even that is not significant coverage. Note that is a self-published blog that also only briefly mentions BEYE/BIEW in a list rather than containing significant coverage. DePRODed in 2009. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete I couldn't find any good sources myself and I don't think any of the sources currently in the article are independent and reliable given most of them seem to be user-created and/or primary. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Maintenance tags since 2009 and every reference is the project's own SourceForge pages or its website, with a directory listing and a self-published blog as the closest things to outside notice. My own search found nothing either; WP:GNG is failed. Onatic (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Umbrellar

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Umbrellar
• Articles for deletion/Umbrellar (2nd nomination)

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

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No independent in-depth coverage. Kqol • talk 23:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Zealand. Kqol • talk 23:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2020, though I'm not necessarily sure if the "keep" arguments or the sources brought up at the time (not all of which are currently in the article) really hold up (or were, if ever, P&G-based) six years later. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – I wasn't able to identify any sources that meet WP:NCORP, including sources identified in the previous discussion (such as and ). I did not formally assess the source list on the Talk page, but the few I clicked through to looked like more of the same. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Pop PHP Framework

Pop PHP Framework (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. I could not find any independent reliable sources with detailed significant coverage of this framework (that don't just include it in a list). The only thing I found that's anywhere close to sigcov is . Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – seven of the fourteen citations are "top N PHP frameworks" listicles on SEO blogs, and the other seven are GitHub and popphp.org. None of that is independent significant coverage (WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Treams

Treams (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)

Redirect to T-matrix method#Software: Fails WP:GNG; the independent sources (not written by Rockstuhl, who developed the software) that mention treams that I could access do not contain significant coverage of the software; they only briefly cite it or just note that it was used in their experiments. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Physics and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I'm not completely sure, if it should stay here or be redirected. I wouldn’t probably mind moving the article to the T-matrix page, while keeping the detailed description of its capabilities, since for users these may be more important than the method itself. Posolubile (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

StankDawg

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/StankDawg
• Articles for deletion/StankDawg (2nd nomination)

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

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

Article does not provide evidence of meeting WP:NBIO (significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject) - citations are mostly self-published.

Also not seeing a strong case for WP:CREATIVE - his major works, including Binary Revolution Radio, Digital DawgPound, HackTV, and DocDroppers, don't seem to have significant independent secondary coverage. I put in this nomination a month ago, closed as delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital DawgPound (2nd nomination). It looks like the arguments in the first AfD for this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StankDawg) were mostly along the lines of WP:CREATIVE, including for his articles in 2600, but that work doesn't seem to meet the current criteria.

I searched for the person's name, handle, and project names in Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, and a basic Wikipedia Library EBSCO search, and did not find much. Brief coverage: 2004 opinion piece, page 271 in 2011 book, page 39 in another 2011 book. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2007, but that might have been under the lower standards of the era, and it has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2023. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I was involved with editing this article in 2006 (20 years ago!) and went through it again just now. I've expanded the list of works by both StankDawg and some Digital DawgPound members, added a 2011 standalone interview, and added information about his post-BinRev work, such as co-hosting the first episode of Hacker Public Radio. HPR's archives credit him with 18 episodes across HPR and its predecessor, Today with a Techie, through 2011. --Elonka 19:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Most importantly, a lot of cruft has been removed: less is more. Good rescue by Elonka. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Curious if you're seeing any significant, independent secondary coverage of the person or the creative works? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fortra.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Core Security Technologies

Core Security Technologies (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 Fortra because Fortra purchased CSS and rebranded it to Fortra. It doesn't need a separate article.

I am concerned that Fortra does not meet WP:ORG, as that article only summarizes the routine business activities and offerings of the company, but I am not pursuing deletion of that at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, Computing, and Minnesota. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge – I took a quick look at sources for Fortra to see if has any chance of prevailing as a standalone article, and I think it looks close to me i.e. it plausibly does meet WP:NCORP. Looks like Fortra has many acquisitions, and I agree that Core Security Technologies should likely live there. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I have a disclosed COI / personal relationship with individuals at Fortra, but thought it might be helpful to add this specific context here. There are a number of other existing articles about companies or former companies that are now part of Fortra, e.g. Globalscape, Clearswift, Linoma Software, Network Automation, TeamQuest Corporation, Tripwire (company), and Vera Security. It may be worth keeping the broader set of legacy entities in mind when considering whether consolidation into the parent article is appropriate, rather than treating Core Security as an isolated case. I don't mean to suggest that the existence or notability of those subjects contributes toward Fortra's notability; if there's interest in looking more broadly at the sourcing/notability of Fortra itself or the appropriate organization of the related articles, happy to take that to Talk:Fortra rather than derail here. Mrmctorso (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tado°

Tado° (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)

No indication of notability, just WP:CORPTRIV and non-independent publications. Athanelar (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Germany. Athanelar (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – I'm not an NCORP expert, but it looks to me like the sourcing is there in the German media e.g. Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt.
  • von Heymann, Tobias. "Die jungen Problemlöser". DIE WELT (in German). Retrieved 2026-09-23.
  • Räth, Georg. "Tado: So will das Start-up vom Hype um Wärme profitieren". DIE WELT (in German). Retrieved 2026-09-23.
  • Paukner, Pascal (2014-11-30). "Ganz schön warm hier". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2026-09-23.

Also some of the usual in places like WP:TECHCRUNCH e.g. . Also seeing a lot of German product reviews of Tado products, so could maybe be re-scoped to meet WP:NPRODUCT and focus on their smart thermostat product lines. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article, and I see it's almost all PROMO. If kept, needs to be reduced to a stub. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Suriname0

1. Based on interviews with the founders of the companies it covers; so it's not independent and can't be used to substantiate notability.

2. Ditto, full of quotes from the company's founder.

3. Ditto here. I'd bet all of these pieces were produced as part of the same marketing push by Tado.

As for TECHCRUNCH; like that link says, their articles often have too little independent analysis to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH so that's out the window. But looking at those 3 pieces anyway, the first is plain WP:CORPTRIV covering a funding round, so's the second, so's the third.

Whether there might be material for a separate article about their products is kind of irrelevant. There still seems to be no indication here of WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant sources for this article. Athanelar (talk) 20:40, 23 September 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)} 03:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Child Care Management System

Child Care Management System (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)

Out of the 7 google news hits, only the 1st one refers to this Australian system. It seems the same term is used in the USA. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Computing, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. Most of the available material is routine or primary-source information, so it does not meet WP:GNG.--Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Software transactional memory

Software transactional memory (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)

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of a temporary account as requested at WT:AFD § Request for AfD nomination for merging for Software transactional memory. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

Merge into Transactional memory There is significant overlap in topic between this page and transactional memory, as well as in content. I propose merging this page into there as that page's title is more general and would be a better location to include this page's content. ~2026-50637-96 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Dunstan Guba

Dunstan Guba (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)

Ghanaian cybersecurity expert (BLP). The sources are a routine bio, a few brief mentions, and a primary source (news coverage of a medal he received). I see no evidence of sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, as required for WP:BASIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Ghana. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I recently contributed to the article, but I have no personal, professional, financial, family, or organisational connection with the subject and have not been paid or asked to edit it.

I found two national-news reports that provide more than passing mentions. MyJoyOnline's “Ghanaian Policeman secures podium finish at global INTERPOL cyber warfare competition” (31 May 2025) focuses on Guba and discusses his performance and related work. GBC Ghana's “Ghana Cyber Expert Warns Africa: Ransomware Now Targets Trust, Not Just Money” (31 December 2025) provides substantial coverage of his cybersecurity work and presentation. These are separate national media organisations covering different events.

I agree that the Council of Europe speaker biography, institutional pages, event programmes, and police-release-derived reporting should not independently establish notability. However, I believe the MyJoyOnline and GBC coverage, considered together, provides a plausible basis under WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. CindyPlus (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - The article (most likely) fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC; significant coverage from multiple reliable sources is required to establish notability. I did search for sources on my own and found nothing. It is possible that someone else will find sources (remember WP:NEXIST), but as of now I would advocate for deletion. WikipediholicRat (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The issues raised are not consistent with the policies guiding our operations on wikipedia. The issue raised by the nomination are not factual; stating that the sources are a 'routine bio, a few brief mentions, and a primary source (news coverage of a medal he received)'.

The article is built on independent sources which comply with WP:NBASIC; sources from Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, Joy FM (Ghana), Business and Financial Times, and Ghana News Agency. These are secondary sources, not institutional bios or press releases. The coverage, taken together, is not “routine” or “a few brief mentions.” Multiple independent reliable secondary sources have discussed Guba's professional contributions and competitive achievement in non-trivial detail. This satisfies the WP:BASIC WP:GNG threshold for significant coverage.

Similar biography on Wikipedia are Albert Antwi-Boasiako, Julius Robinson, Divine Selase Agbeti, David Asante-Apeatu, and Obadare Peter Adewale

The nomination for deletion only underestimates the independence and depth of available sources. The sort of coverage Wikipedia typically accepts for law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals from developing countries is international competitive success in a specialised INTERPOL digital-security challenge, national media reporting of that success, and subsequent contributions from experts.

Guba’s documented roles (Cyber Intelligence Lead, inter-agency work with INTERPOL/FBI/Meta, lecturing, national TV programme, and the INTERPOL competitive result) sit comfortably within the same range of specialized professional achievement and independent secondary coverage that has supported those articles.

Additionally,

• WP:NEXIST Sources do exist, and have been found, the article can be expanded and better referenced, rather than deleted.
• WP:BEFORE This is a biography of a living person that needs to be improved to use a neutral tone, better sources, and remove any promotional language. No deletion is needed when coverage is sufficient. Uprising Man (talk)

• Delete The article subject fails to meet fails to meet WP:GNG. No significant reliable third coverage also exists. And Dunstan Guba is not a similar profile to Albert Antwi-Boasiako, Divine Selase Agbeti or David Asante-Apeau. The scale of rank is very different. Guba’s rank within the Ghana police is that of a middle level police officer at best. Ataavi (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Keep Unless the nominator or those advocating deletion can explain what makes the coverage routine then I don't see that argument as having any credible weight. It's extremely easy to throw around claims that something's "routine", "run-of-the-mill", etc. when the ONUS isn't on you to defend your reasoning.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 22:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing serious third party coverage for this individual. Note that the B&FT Online article looks a press release (no author and contains a short 'About' section at the bottom), and GBC Ghana Online is a very close paraphrasing of the said article.-KH-1 (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Hochulization

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEOLOGISM0 Kqol • talk 21:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is not dedicated to a neologism. It is dedicated to a current technique bearing social and political significance. Бялхляб (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Бялхляб is right that the article appears to be about a technique, not the name for it. That being said, I don't think the technique passes WP:GNG - The Verge seems to be the only reliable source covering it nontrivially. Merge to 3D-printed firearm#United States, where there is already discussion of regulations by state. While generally applicable, this technique appears to only be discussed in the firearms context. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  • The New York law that the technique is a response to has better coverage, and this is best framed in that context: , , . ~ A412 ^talk! 00:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not Urban Dictionary. This is lacking any good sources. I don't think The Verge is a reliable source for this topic. Because it's a direct reference to a living person, WP:BLP is implicated; the burden of proof rests with the proponents of the page. The sources proferred are about the law, not the alleged computer program that is the subject of this page. Bearian (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Bearian, why would WP:THEVERGE, which by consensus is "a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles", be unreliable for 3D printing, which surely falls under technology and science? ~ A412 ^talk! 15:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge to DEFCAD: This has only been discussed in the context of DEFCAD and Cody Wilson for now. It would be slightly undue to merge this information to a broader article such as 3D-printed firearm (that would be my third-choice merge target after DEFCAD and Cody Wilson). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with the alternate proposed merge target of DEFCAD. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. The proposal to merge to DEFCAD makes sense. Бялхляб (talk) 3:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• There are still only two sources; I would not oppose a Redirect to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

WDC 65C21

WDC 65C21 (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 redirecting these five Western Design Center products because I was unable to find independent WP:SIGCOV for any of them. Of the 9 products listed on the WDC page, 4 seem clearly notable and these 5 seem clearly not notable to me.

This bundled nomination includes the following related articles:

WDC 65C265 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WDC 65C22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WDC 65C51 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WDC 65C134 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note the articles were originally created by a representative of the company. I would have WP:BLARed these myself, but since it's five articles and not one I wanted to nominate this for additional editor eyes. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. Suriname0 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest instead merging WDC 65C22 into MOS Technology 6522, and WDC 65C51 into MOS Technology 6551. In both of those cases, the WDC chip is a second-source for the MOS original, and the functionality is described on the MOS page; the MOS chips do appear to be notable as they're described in depth in multiple books about programming the 80s computers that used them. (The 65C21 is similarly a second-source 6821, but we don't have a page about the 6821, which was rather less popular than the 6522/6551...) Adam Sampson (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is a good suggestion. No opposition to this revised plan. Suriname0 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: which is the better target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, this is what I would recommend:

• WDC 65C22 → MOS Technology 6522
• WDC 65C51 → MOS Technology 6551
• the other three → Western Design Center

Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom – both citations are the manufacturer's own product page and datasheet, and the articles were created by a representative of the company (WP:PRIMARY, WP:ORGIND). Kukuryza (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

IQM Quantum Computers

IQM Quantum Computers (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 company; fails WP:NCORP. Sources are WP:CORPTRIV about capital raises (, , , , , , , , ) a press release (), an affiliated source (), and a trivial mention (). I don't see anything else qualifying in my BEFORE search.

There's also a nonexistent and never-archived link that may indicate the involvement of LLMs in creating this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Finland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify or Keep. I agree with the nominator's assessment here. None of the sources individually are significant coverage, and the sources considered together do not constitute significant coverage. That said, I think this company is significant - from a brief search, I found this article from business wire (unsure if we consider it reliable for these matters) that says this company is the First European Quantum Computing Company Listed on a Major U.S. Exchange. Improvements need to be made, but I think that it is significant enough for inclusion! Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  BusinessWire is a press release service; that is a press release from the company itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Here are two sources which pass WP:CORPDEPTH:

• Here is a ~950 word article in HS, Finland's largest subscription newspaper.
• Here is a ~1200 word investment-analysis article from Tekniikka & Talous.

Both articles contain independent analysis rather than simply restating company announcements. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. While the company is in the initial stages, such is the case for most quantum computing companies that are not Google or IBM or Microsoft's quantum branches. Having a PhD in quantum technologies myself, and having attended quantum engineering conferences recently where the number of mentions of IQM quantum computing was very many (tens if not a hundred). Comparing to contemporaneous QC companies such as Quantinuum (founded 2021) and IonQ (founded 2015), IQM Quantum Computers was founded in 2018. The other companies have extensive articles already. So the spirit here should be to improve this IQM article instead of deleting it. It is indeed a pioneer of the European QC company ecosystem. To support my case, I put more secondary sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and are not authored by the CEO or co-founder of the company (some initial sources in the article were indeed press releases by IQM)

• Here
• Here

Quantumavik (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Other companies exist is not an argument for keeping. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – Per the sources identified by Jähmefyysikko. (And edit to reduce the PROMO present in the current article.) Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC) Edit: striking this vote now that a more experienced NCORP editor has chimed in. Suriname0 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between the churnalism sourcing and the argumentum ad verecundiam, I don't see a strong case for retention presented here. Could HighKing or some of our other resident NCORP source reviewers please chime in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Dratify. I found additional sources such as and there are probably more

• https://www.eib.org/en/projects/all/20210429
• https://www.weforum.org/organizations/iqm-quantum-computers/
• https://www.ourcrowd.com/companies/iqm

As stated above, in its current state doesn't do a good job of substantiating notability. This needs to be improved PlainJane91 (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. A source analysis shows that none of the sources meet NCORP criteria although there is one I am unable to access.

• Bloomberg - Finnish Quantum Startup IQM in Talks to Raise over €200 Million uses "people familiar with the matter" as the source. It's a single regurgitated sentence with no indication of independent verification, fact checking, etc. The rest of the article is a potted history. This is not "independent content", fails ORGIND.
• TechCrunch - European quantum computing startup takes its funding to €32M with fresh raise relies entirely on information provided by the company, there is no "independent content", fails ORGIND
• Amazon Braket launches new 54-qubit superconducting quantum processor from IQM relies entirely on an announcement from a connected business partner, this is PR and is not "independent content", fails ORGIND
• IQM raises €275 million in round led by Ten Eleven Ventures is PR, fails ORGIND
• European Super Promise is a profile piece, relies entirely on interviews and information from the company, fails ORGIND
• Quantum computing startup IQM raises $320 million as investors pile into the tech is PR, fails ORGIND
• The Finnish quantum computer manufacturer raised 128 million euros is PR, fails ORGIND
• Quantum computing startup IQM gets €11m in seed investment is PR, fails ORGIND
• IQM Quantum Computers to supply Finland with a world-leading superconducting 300-qubit quantum computer is PR, fails ORGIND
• Finland invests €20m in country's first quantum computer is PR from a related business entity, fails ORGIND
• Finland: IQM’s quantum fabrication facility gets a €35 million boost from the EIB is PR, fails ORGIND
• IQM Quantum Computers to list shares in US at initial $1.8 billion valuation is PR, fails ORGIND
• EIB, weforum and ourcrown are company Profiles with no "independent content", fails ORGIND
• This quantum start-up is breaking into an untapped market. What it means for IQM stock is an article about the topic company and Quantum computing marketplace in general, but it simply regurgitates what the company has reported and said, it does not contain any independent content, that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
• Barron's - How a European Quantum-Computing Start-Up Plans to Take on IBM and Google is based entirely on an interview with the CEO Jan Goetz and the company's data, that is not independent content, fails ORGIND
• Is it worth investing in quantum company IQM? This is what its business is like is paywalled and I'm unable to access it currently. Perhaps Jähmefyysikko can point to specific paragraphs and related reasoning that the content contains in-depth independent content about the company. In any event, we need multiple sources and this is the only source I was unable to access in full, so my !vote remains to Delete.

I'm happy revisit these sources if someone disagrees and to review new sources if people provide links and point to specific pages/sections/paragraphs which they believe meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Simon Willison

Simon Willison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article does not clearly demonstrate that the subject satisfies the general notability guideline or the applicable biographical notability guideline. Most of the references currently cited establish particular employment positions, projects, organizational roles, or announcements, rather than providing significant independent secondary coverage of Simon Willison as a subject in his own right. Several sources are also primary or affiliated with the subject or the organizations discussed. ~2026-48104-83 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of TA -- above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NCREATIVE#2, The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, as he is one of the cocreators of the Django (web framework). Kelob2678 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Even if this were true, he still fails the criteria needed in WP:NBASIC. Being famous as the co-creator of Django falls under the rule WP:SINGLEEVENT, and at best should redirect to that article instead. ~2026-50291-58 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  NCREATIVE is an SNG, which is an independent path to notability from GNG. The guideline says that one technique is enough, otherwise it would have said "for originating multiple significant new concepts, theories or techniques". Kelob2678 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  The SNG for people states that if a person meets additional criteria (in this case, WP:NCREATIVE) but fails the basic criteria (WP:NBASIC), then the contents of that article should be merged into another article.

  See also: WP:BIOSPECIAL, which is a guide for people who meet the additional criteria of SNG (People) but fails the basic criteria. ~2026-50291-58 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  BIOSPECIAL also talks about "a satisfying explanation", and I think here we have one. Merging his biography to Django will not provide additional context that helps readers to understand him better. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Week Keep – It's difficult to search for sources because Willison is mentioned so much in so many outlets over such a long period of time (which itself is a signal of some kind...). I'm not seeing the kinds of slam-dunk coverage to trivially meet GNG (e.g. profiles in high-profile non-tech publications), but I see sufficient discussion of Willison and his work to justify keeping this page. He is used regularly as a source, sometimes as a passing mention and sometimes with a few sentences about his work. Business Insider , Ars Technica , the New York Times , VentureBeat , WIRED . (Some nice interviews e.g. from The Register , which doesn't count toward notability.) I'm going to stop my search there, but I suspect others may be able to identify more substantial coverage, including from way back in the Django days (he has a lot of mentions in old print materials on the Internet Archive that I didn't look at carefully). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Here is my take on these sources:

• |-

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"'AI-pilled' engineers are working harder and burning out faster, Django co-creator says". Business Insider.		WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	~ Only on his anecdote on AI agents	? Unknown
"Simon Willison says the 'dark factory' is the next big thing in AI". Business Insider.		WP:BUSINESSINSIDER		? Unknown
"AI agents now have their own Reddit-style social network, and it's getting weird fast". Ars Technica.		This author is unreliable, because he is known for using AI tools in his reporting and was later fired from Ars Technica for writing an article with fabricated AI-generated quotes.	Passing mention only	✘ No
"Will the future of software development run on vibes?". Ars Technica.		Same reason as above		✘ No
"Twitter pranksters derail GPT-3 bot with newly discovered "prompt injection" hack". Ars Technica.		Same reason as above		✘ No
"OpenClaw proves agentic AI works. It also proves your security model doesn't. 180,000 developers just made that your problem". Venture Beat.		WP:VENTUREBEAT	Passing mention only	✘ No
"Firefox Users Monkey With the Web".			~ Only about his program (which is unnamed in the article)	? Unknown
"Simon Willison interview: AI software still needs the human touch".	Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• It appears that at best these sources can be used for some anecdotes, but nothing significant. I will note that the term dark factory has been made long before the Business Insider article came out. ~2026-50291-58 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further anaylsis/confirmation of the sources brought forward by Suriname0 will be useful in firmly establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Django (web framework): I reviewed all of Suriname0's sources, and I agree with the TA's source assessment tables. These are churnalism summarizing his podcast appearances (the BI pieces) or standard instances of being quoted in the press (the rest) that don't reach WP:GNG. With GNG not met, it seems that his notability is limited to creating Django and thus a 1E situation. A redirect in this instance is appropriate and will preserve the page history should he become notable in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.