Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22b38bd3fa1c892

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]

Dariusz Makowski

[edit]
Dariusz Makowski (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)

One of many pages of academics at the Lodz University of Technology recently created directly in main by a novice editor who appears to be following a template. Associate professor in electrical engineering with a h-factor of 21 and ~2K cites, too low for NPROF. Page contains two unsourced awards, and WP:PEACOCK. At the minimum COI, I have asked page creator about UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15 (software engineer)

[edit]
15 (software engineer) (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 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:BASIC; independent notability is met as the subject is a primary focus of both the articles 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, both of which have plenty of sources that are not currently used in the nominated article. The article is incomplete, but the problems are entirely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. –GM 16:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal is clearly a subtopic of 15.ai, I'm not convinced it needs to be a standalone article (at the very least it needs a hatchet taken to it to pare it down from 80,000 bytes). This is not is convincing case for independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What?! That topic is clearly not a subtopic of 15.ai. It easily passes WP:GNG, has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time, has multiple sections and paragraphs that don't involve 15.ai at all, and has an entire Legacy section filled with WP:RS talking about how important it was in the general landscape of video games and NFTs. Why in the world would that article be a subtopic of 15.ai as opposed to, say, a subtopic of Troy Baker or a subtopic of NFT controversies? The article itself is GA quality, so I don't know where you're getting this notion at all that the article needs to be rewritten. Proposing that the nominated article and the whole Voiceverse article be merged into 15.ai is seriously baffling and raises the question of whether you actually read all of the article's sources in full (I did). –GM 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 15.ai cause there really isnt much to the article that isnt already discussed at 15.ai, tbh the pseudonymous nature of the individual is going to make quality blp sources extremely difficult and a lot of the sources used i think currently at least border on WP:BLPGOSSIP. i do want to also note an article about this individual was already blanked and redirected once before and i think the reasoning why is still a solid argument for the redirect today [2] Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 15.ai, the subject does not have independent notability as the majority of the sources are about the website and not the individual themselves. MidnightMayhem (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to WP:CREATIVE #3, subject created 15.ai which has been primary subject of multiple international independent periodical articles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and more. I don't see why independent notability is important that it mandates a redirect, there does not seem to be official policy that require this. We have articles Speechify and Cliff Weitzman, who is notable for nothing outside of Speechify. Arguably Weitzman's article should be a redirect more than 15's because 15.ai's reach was much wider than Speechify. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bronymike2010 see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NBLP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Issac I Navarro That's where WP:CREATIVE comes from on the same page, an additional criteria along with the regular notability criteria. Independent notability is moot because subject qualifies CREATIVE #3, warranting an article. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bronymike2010, and must also pass WP:GNG.
As GM mentions below part of the claim is WP:BLP1E Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Issac I Navarro: No, I'm saying that I disagree with the WP:BLP1E argument. The subject does pass WP:GNG. It's just a matter of improving the article, which I unfortunately cannot because I am blocked due to edit warring. Once the block is over, though, I'll make sure to improve it substantially. –GM 08:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fully understood. I was pointing out to Bronymike2010, the rationale and policy/guidelines being cited. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Issac I Navarro: No problem. I only wanted to clarify because I saw that you were repeating the same argument above, hoping you'd reconsider. –GM 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you looking at that illustrate that this is not a case of BLP1E? Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Issac I Navarro: Here's a sample of multiple WP:RS showing coverage occurring at different periods for different reasons:
  • Feng, Bai (March 15, 2020). "模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" [Struggling with Models with Over 100 Million Parameters? See How an MIT Student Achieved High‑Quality Text‑to‑Speech with Minimal Data!]. QQ News (in Chinese). XinZhiYuan. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025. (pre-2021 15.ai)
  • Chandraseta, Rionaldi (January 21, 2021). "Generate Your Favourite Characters' Voice Lines using Machine Learning". Towards Data Science. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved December 18, 2024. (during operation in 2021)
  • Wright, Steve (January 17, 2022). "Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission". Stevivor. Archived from the original on January 17, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2025. (Voiceverse scandal)
  • Abisola, Shojobi (January 3, 2025). "The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI". Independent. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 27, 2025. (post-15.ai)
–GM 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Week merge Merge/Redirect per nom and Skyshifter. I am not seeing how this subject would warrant it's own page. That being said, I would prefer a merger over a redirect, as there does appear to be some useful and encyclopedic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Issac I Navarro: The above arguments are essentially invoking WP:BLP1E, in that the claim is that the subject is only notable for having created 15.ai. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here. The subject is covered in connection with both having created and operated 15.ai and separately for a substantial and well-documented role in the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal that is notable enough to have its own article. BLP1E directly states Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. which isn't true here. –GM 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the sources that GM has pointed out (above), I have striked my redirect. I have a very week stance on a merger due to the bio may pass WP:GNG. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Issac I Navarro: I don't think a merge is appropriate here, as it would then be grounds for WP:SPLITTING again as the 15.ai article should be focused on the website. The Background section is already long as it is and largely focuses on the technology behind what made the website unique. It wouldn't make sense to merge only to include additional information about its creator irrelevant to the website when we could easily fix it by having a separate article per WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPINOFF for this: the main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article. –GM 08:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of DCS vendors

[edit]
List of DCS vendors (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 has no references since 2012, and doesn't appear to show notability. Majash2020 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tengine

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tengine (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 could not find any coverage for this software in WP:RS for it to meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, the page appears to have been partially or mostly generated by AI (see the weirdly named heading "Name origin and confusion" and the features list with excessive bold). There was a previous AFD at this title in 2008 but it seems to have been for something completely different. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SAMPA

[edit]
SAMPA (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 X-SAMPA#History because everything on the SAMPA page is covered by the history of X-SAMPA. I'm trying to consolidate linguistics articles a little bit -- they are somewhat scattered due to "write a Wikipedia article" being a common university assignment -- and this one strikes me as entirely redundant. I'm generally against deleting pages, but here no information is lost. Omentic (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CFS (file format)

[edit]
CFS (file format) (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) 11:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no refs in the article that would contribute to GNG, and nothing on archive.org, LWN or in a general web search. (I even tried Debian Code Search to see if there was any other software that supported it specifically, but nope; from the description it would just look like an ISO-9660 image to general archive programs.) Adam Sampson (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Cloud Object Storage

[edit]
IBM Cloud Object Storage (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) 11:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for same reasons as expressed by Clenpr ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cleversafe Inc. The article being created in 2008 for a cloud company product was a bit weird to me, so I dug into the history of the article a bit more. The article was created as an article on a company called CleverSafe, which was eventually bought out by IBM. But old versions of this article actually have sources that are quite good for the time: a lot of stuff from The Register. Lo and behold, someone created an article on Cleversafe in 2020, 12 years after this article was created. That article is about a notable subject; I'm seeing a NYT piece in-depth on the company, which helps meet WP:NCORP when handling the sources in the old version here.
    I think we should preserve the history somehow and point this to the existing article on what became IBM Cloud Object Storage. That is, redirect to Cleversafe Inc., because there's a notable subject somewhere here even if IBM's Cloud Object Storage product itself isn't. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source files

[edit]
Source files (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 to Source code because it offers nothing that can't be a short section there (if that). Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as suggested — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
[COI: doing citizen research « Open Source 2.0: From Open Source Software to Open Source Resources?, therefore working on improvement of open source and open-source software pages]
Hello, I did this change, it was previously redirecting to source code as mentionned in Talk:Source files. I saw the page exists while trying to create a red link to 'source files', seeing it redirecting to source code being inapropriate for the expected use.
So obviously against the redirect. We can see source file terminology being used in various fields, the current references provide use cases of source files with documents in research (.tex/.md → .pdf), in education (.odt/.docx/.h5p → .pdf/.html), for hardware components (.kicad/.FCStd → .gerber/.stl), image design (.psd/.xcf → .png/.jpg, wikipedia having recommendation to publish them on Wikipedia:Image source files), fonts (.sfd/.glyphs → .ttf/.otf), movies (.blend/.kdenlive → .mp4/.mkv), could be in music (.als/.flp → .mp3) also, and the list is probably non-exhaustive.
This has nothing to do with software source code, creating subsections in source code for these formats would be conceptual inconsistency. Source code is a type of source file, not the other way around. Could be important to get separate source files page to explain editability of digital resources. @Jerod Lycett and GhostInTheMachine: Could you develop your position in light of these arguments for the redirect? Thanks in advance. AbcSxyZ (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, those are also variants of source code, just markup language code as opposed to runnable code. Also, page titles don't have to be synonyms for a redirect to be necessary. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 20:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are markdown files seriously a source code for you ? As it's not described as such on wikipedia at least, as Markup language is not described as source code either, as source code page do not explain markup language (just linked in see also). AbcSxyZ (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are source code. They get compiled into the end result, whether that's an executable or not. Java traditionally gets compiled into a .jar which still needs an interpreter, the JVM. A movie or image etc. is no different. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is this similarity from an initial format to an end format, a "compilation", that's why there are called source files accross domains and this structural similarity is exactly the argument for a dedicated article on the concept. But strongly disagree with the rational that 'it's source code':
1/ Source code is about programming languages, this is not programming languages.
2/ Source code is about human readable format, some type of source files can be binary (ex:psd/blend files)
3/ People simply don't refer it as source code, but source files. Because it's not programming language and they are not software developer. You're trying to override existing terminology usage against (incorrect) technical reality.
What explanation of "source code" would coherently cover all these cases while remaining consistent? The explanation of source code would have to be changed, in contradiction with all existing explanations of the notion. Because none of this is about source code. AbcSxyZ (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even from a programming perspective the redirect is certainly conceptually wrong.
Source code is the instructions, the content, while the source file is the container of the source code. Some cases where source code may not be stored in source files (see https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/220781/source-code-vs-source-files). AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With everyone supporting the redirect it seems I will have to add all of these things into source code page to reveal how absurd is all of this... Wtf debate lol, but revealing the state of consideration to source files beyond software. I will let you explain why we speak about hardware cad file into source code page 😂 AbcSxyZ (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like all the ref I brought worth nothing. There is a problem here. 18 ref outside software covering 6-7 fields... AbcSxyZ (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two recent Wikipedia edits link to source files from Open source#Fonts and Open-source hardware — if you think a redirect to "source code" seems coherent in those contexts. AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Was also added to Open educational resources#Open Source Educational Resources AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Makes perfect sense. I feel like maybe you should invite whoever it is that added those links to come join in the conversation, see if they think it makes sense too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's me actually. So ok if that makes sense for you... but at this point I (tried) to deconstruct every single arguments and even the fact that for software source files and source code are two different things, I can't do more 😅 Waiting for more external pov on my side. AbcSxyZ (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+ provide a source stating that CAD files, font source files, or educational source files are "source code". Without that, this is an unsourced opinion rather than an argument for the redirect. AbcSxyZ (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of software development, a source file is a file containing source code.[1][2] The two terms are therefore distinct: source code refers to the program text, while a source file refers to the file in which that text is stored.

References

  1. ^ "Source File". PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2026-07-19.
  2. ^ Meredith, Alisdair; Hughes, Lori (2025-05-19). Input Files Are Source Files (PDF) (Report). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21.
A little sentence added to the page dedicated to all of you. Now provide sources explaining that source code and source files are the same thing to support this redirect. Sources, not opinions. Therefore, as distinct notions, they do not satisfy any of the purposes of redirects. AbcSxyZ (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett & @Metallurgist You maintain your position ? No consensus ? Being not really a matter of personal opinion but technical reality.
As source file & source code are distinct even from a software perspective and source file notion being used in other domains without reference to source code as it's not about programming language at all, just as an editable element. The fact that there is a transformation process turns it into something analogous but distinct from software.
In light of the sources and arguments provided, I see no basis that would justify this redirect. AbcSxyZ (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That you fail to see something doesn't change the facts that a source file contains the code used, whether it's compiled like C, interpreted, like Perl, SVG, LaTeX, and XML, it's still code. Java's bytecode isn't even human readable and yet is a source file that is code. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So if the source file contains the source code, the source file in itself is something different from the code. It sounds like a maintain with an argument that prove the distinction. In some ways, if we speak about the fact that everything is binary code, then I may agree 🙃
« In computing, source code, or simply code or source, is human readable plain text that can eventually result in controlling the behavior of a computer » (cf Wikipedia)
Not human readable, not source code.
Bytecode (also called portable code or p-code) is an instruction set designed for efficient execution by a software interpreter. Unlike human-readable source code, [...] (cf Wikipedia)
Bytecode is not source code.
You wrongly conflate source code and source file. AbcSxyZ (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Computing proposed deletions (PROD)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1366537374"