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

AACS encryption key controversy

AACS encryption key 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)

I propose merging to Advanced Access Content System because the article seems to be a very overblown example of WP:RECENTISM (for the time). While the topic passes WP:GNG, it fails WP:MERGEREASON #2 and #4, and possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to a lack of evidence of lasting effects (newly printed discs simply swapped keys). With the "background" section being entirely comprised of an explanation of AACS, the article can easily be trimmed down to a couple of paragraphs without undue weight and placed in a section about the publication of the key. Something similar probably applies to Free Speech Flag, but I will hold off on that to see what consensus here is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Technology, Computing, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. A lot of fluff but not much actual content. FaviFake (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• I propose merging Free Speech Flag and AACS encryption key controversy, as the AACS page is more about the technology and how AACS works. The encryption key controversy page is more about the legal takedowns and Digg, which lead to the development of the Free Speech Flag. Merging the AACS encryption key controversy and Free Speech Flag pages makes more sense than trying to put an internet protest into a technical page. ~2026-53526-35 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Given that they are both highly redundant, a merge between them won't solve any of the issues this page is facing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Waltograph

Waltograph (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)

Zero sigcov outside of a single PCWorld source. Flickr is a primary source while user reviews of a download does not establish notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disney and Technology. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I tried looking for "Walt Disney font" as an alternative, not much comes up other than download sites. Even the sourcing now in the article isn't enough (it's also orange per Cite Highlighter, so of marginal notability). Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

Delete: The only citation of I could find does not even mention the programming language in the body of the paper (excluding self-citations, of course). Agree with nominator's assessment that the subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 2 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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:01, 2 October 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)

Delete per nom. I am not seeing any sources that count towards WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE. Interviews and podcast appearances do not count towards GNG. A summary of a presentation he gave is not significant independent coverage of the subject or his work. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I can only find coverage about Hacker Public Radio, but nothing about this person or the hacking collective. Literally nothing in Gnews or Newspapers, even a Gsearch brings up, not much of anything. I don't see a pass at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Delete Most of the article consists of product-launch coverage, funding announcements, and technical descriptions of tado°'s products and features. The "Products" section in particular reads more like product documentation than encyclopedic coverage, while the cited material is largely announcements or coverage based on the company's own statements. I have not found sufficient independent, in-depth coverage of tado° itself to establish WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. ~~~~

U9 aloka (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)