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)

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)

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)
• Delete per nom. 2020 sources cited in AFD are now counted as WP:CORPTRIV. ~2026-53159-97 (talk) 13:21, 2 October 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)

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)

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)

• Comment This system is no longer used by Aus government: "From 2018, the Australian Government implemented the new Child Care Subsidy System (CCSS), replacing the older Child Care Management System (CCMS)." [] However if this article is deleted I suggest some updated content be included in an article about the welfare systems or child care systems in different countries eg [] LPascal (talk) 14:00, 2 October 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)'.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Keep i'm not the original creator of this article neither do i have a personal, professional, financial, family, or organisational connection with the subject and have not been paid or asked to edit it. i find this article interesting and we can improve it MilanoHimself (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Additional source analysis following relisting: A significant source was not considered in my original comment: “Ghana’s experience and Dunstan Guba’s perspective on the future of cybercrime investigation”, almost a year before this AfD. This is not a passing mention or a report limited to the medal. It contains several sections discussing Guba’s cybercrime-investigation work, digital-forensics teaching, public education, involvement with AMBER Alert Ghana, international cooperation and INTERPOL result. It is separate from David Apinga’s MyJoyOnline report, “Ghanaian Policeman secures podium finish at global INTERPOL cyber warfare competition”, which focuses on the INTERPOL Digital Security Challenge and provides contextual discussion of the competition and Guba’s performance. Laud Nartey’s 3News report, “Cybercrime investigator Dunstan Guba highlights the growing trend of romance scams in Ghana” adds some significant supplementary coverage..

There maybe the concerns raised about the institutional sources and the textual similarity between the B&FT and GBC reports. The stronger argument rests on the two separately authored MyJoyOnline reports, published on different occasions and covering different aspects of the subject.

In my view, the features materially answer the claim that the available sourcing consists only of a routine biography, passing mentions and an award announcement. Together, they provide coverage provide a reasonable basis under WP:BASIC and WP:GNG for retaining and neutrally improving the article. CindyPlus (talk) 03:26, 3 October 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)

Delete: Most of the article's sources merely quote/paraphrase Guba or briefly note that he won an award without much coverage of Guba himself. One source contains slightly more coverage of Guba but still not significant coverage. This source also seems PR-like; it was republished almost word-for-word a year later on a different news site.

Also this article is largely LLM-generated, and I collapsed the LLM-generated portion of the comment by User:Uprising Man above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:07, 2 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)