This is a collection of discussions on the deletion 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:
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.
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.
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:
Fails WP:NSOFT; no indication that this language received any attention from businesses or researchers. The Business Standard source in the article is PR, and the other nominally independent source isn't about M#. A general search didn't find any coverage. Unrelated to a language from Microsoft's Midori project, codenamed M#. Deproded with edit summary "has notable sources". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned article that's written far more akin to an essay than a Wikipedia subject. No substantial improvements made since its creation in 2014, and the original author has not returned to this article for at least ten years. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More "upstart" vanity spam - utterly non notable at this point. nothing in the way of in depth coverage and the passign mentions are...exactly that. CUPIDICAE❤️22:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could not find academic journal articles specifically about Poolside AI, but I found two technical papers that briefly mentioned it. This technical paper only mentions a Poolside AI employee as a credit, and this technical paper mentions Poolside AI as a statistic. Other than that, I cannot find WP:SIGCOV in the academic journals and technical reports. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company has been mentionned in various independant and reliable sources. It is also quite a significant AI company in term of valuation (3B$). Pollockito (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's two reasons why this is should be deleted. Either of them being true is sufficient for the article's deletion.
First, as the talk page states, it isn't clear what the criteria for inclusion on this article entails. Functions can express an infinite number of computations, so the number of functions this list could contain is quite literally infinitely large. The existence of this article seems to be an open invitation to violate WP: INDISCRIMINATE. Computers can do infinitely many things. Do we really need a listicle to describe all the things we can think computers can do?
Second, this article is filled with original research. This article consists of tables that take contents from disparate sources. None of the sources in the article actually compare functions across languages. Even if such sources exist, WP: TNT is in play, because cleaning up this article would amount to essentially blanking the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against nomination. The problem here (and the only reason I can see to delete it) is that there's nothing here to keep. The topic is a useful one, although also one that WP would generally regard as inevitably OR. But there's just nothing worth keeping. The languages covered miss those most interesting to the topic, the dimensions covered aren't particularly good coverage of what's needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm no computer whiz, but this seems an awful lot like a directory. I fail to see the encyclopedic benefit to a list of companies from which you can acquire specific networking technology. Kylemahar902 (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The last AfD says that it doesn't violate WP: DIRECTORY. It might have had different guidance in 2012, but it certainly fails now: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." There are no sources that I could find about this topic, so it also fails WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forensics: We have lame irrelevancies such as this about two companies of one of which our man is a director; papers co-written by our subject, e.g. this one; a bunch of group interviews, like this; fodder for the References section, like this link, this, this, and more; important-looking sources such as The New York Times from whom we only get, unfortunately, yet another irrelevancy about "photos that reveal secrets"; plain and routine press releases, such as this which, strangely, informs us that our subject has been replaced in some "leadership"; and a grave of dead links such as this. No matter how many zeros we add up, the result does not change. -The Gnome (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding any sources that establish notability. There are some papers from Michigan, but they appear to be the researchers who invented this term and their papers promoting this research direction have very few citations. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Back when I worked in the nonprofit sector, my colleagues and I used to compete to come up with the dumbest buzzword portmanteaus. I once suggested "collaboraction" until we learned it was a real thing. This is... not a real thing. This is some academics trying to make fetch happen. The sources do not support a WP:GNG, WP:NEO or WP:WORDISSUBJECT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BLP, I have cleaned out of the article a string of sources that are press-release or come from bad newspapers. Most of the sources only mention Warith Al Maawali and fully describe the company. There's a risk of a WP:COI editor. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note *note the article was reviewed by editor FULBERT today, as was my other article Kentucky Blood Center. Both were immediately nominated for deletion by an editor who has not written any articles of his own. I will ask checkuser to investigate the situation Pollia (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who has been on wikipedia for less than half a year, you have an overly extensive knowledge of wikipedia rules and policies, as well as an expanded understanding of rules and policies.
As for the nomination for deletion, if you take a closer look at WP:N and WP:BIO you'll be surprised that the article qualifies. And when you familiarize yourself with WP:RS you will learn that not all links have to meet all the criteria, some may in some cases support the information provided Pollia (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets WP: GNG. I don't even have to pull up Arabic sources to establish notability.
From Bill Marczak, John Scott-Railton, Adam Senft, Irene Poetranto, and Sarah McKune. “Pay No Attention to the Server Behind the Proxy: Mapping FinFisher’s Continuing Proliferation,” Citizen Lab Research Report No. 64, University of Toronto, October 2015 (url):
We found a FinFisher server running on IP address 37.139.27.xxx, which is pointed to by two subdomains of to70.org, a domain name associated with an Omani company called “Eagle Eye Digital Solutions LLC” through historical WHOIS. The domain is currently registered to “Omantel,” the largest telecom in Oman. Eagle Eye Digital Solutions LLC was founded by, and is run by, Warith Al-Maawali. Leaked emails describe Warith as part of Oman’s Ministry of Interior, as well as a reseller of FinFisher products. Other sites apparently run by Eagle Eye include a major Omani online forum, “oman0.net.” Eagle Eye founder Warith Al Maawali says the forum is “one of the most active sites with the largest user-base in Oman.”
From Wolters Kluwer. "Handbook of Blockchain Law: A Guide to Understanding and Resolving the Legal Challenges of Blockchain Technology", 2020 (url):
In February 2019, Warith Al Maawali, a security and cryptocurrency researcher, reported a security vulnerability with the Coinomi cryptocurrency wallet desktop app. Al Maawali reported that Coinomi provided a wallet recovery process, through which users could enter a previously generated twelve-word recovery phrase to regain access to their wallets. However, Coinomi failed to disable a Google spellcheck feature so that anyone able to intercept web traffic could capture the recovery phrase as plain text and take over the user’s Coinomi wallet and all its contents. Al Maawali claimed to have lost between USD 60,000 and USD 70,000 in digital assets from his Coinomi wallet, but he was not able to prove that this plain text spellcheck flaw was responsible.
Comment: There's also a couple of things that I'd like to get out of the way before this discussion proceeds any further. Dmitry, you need to quit it with this "risk of a WP: COI editor" nonsense. Either take your concerns to WP: COIN or stop making baseless accusations. We do not delete articles because they might have potentially been possibly made by someone who might have a conflict of interest: we delete them on account of a lack of available sourcing. I do my best to assume good faith from other editors, but your reputation precedes you and my tolerance for these kinds of shenanigans is razor thin. Focus on the sourcing, do a WP: BEFORE instead of mass deleting citations from the article, and stop attacking other editors without proper evidence. Your poorly researched and poorly conceived nominations harm the encyclopedia and create unnecessary work for everyone else. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will overlook the offensive words you say. All edits and accusations I make are directly sent to the admins or persons responsible for these causes. And for each one I also offer explanations and demonstrate with arguments why this editor can be a COI. It only remains to thank you for this message and no more..--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Checked the first 10 references and the "Handbook of Blockchain Law". For the 10 references, there is two pdf (the same) which is a brochure on the subject, it is pure WP:PUFF. There are several self-written profiles, there is an about me web page for some forum site (nothing to do with him), there is a couple of press-release and PR style sites, there is a single references on one of the pdf and there is other passing mentions. There is also an X of Y article, top 50 ceo which is PR. On the book, its another mention, that he reported a bug. The other is a passing as well. None of these are secondary sources on a BLP. It is all self-generated run-of-the-mill muck. The man is non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Looks like UPE. scope_creepTalk16:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to have to do this at an AfD but I am getting really fed up with the lack of good-faith towards article nominators. Plus, I really don't like any kind of aggressive language like this "my tolerance for these kinds of shenanigans is razor thin". Disagreements are a fact of collaborative writing but that doesn't mean that we have to use aggressive language towards each other. Please stop with the veiled threats. Thank you for understanding.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and this article fails WP:NOTRESUME. The first source is literally the subject's resume. The sourcing does not really improve. We have his own website ([10]), primary source Q&A ([11]), user-generated content ([12], [13]), articles that read like press releases ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), articles that are press releases ([20], [21], [22]), trivial mentions ([23], [24]) and articles that do not even mention the subject ([25]). As for the sources offered above in the discussion, the book has a single trivial mention ([26]), as does the UToronto report (see page 28). Despite a bad-faith nomination by a disruptive editor, this article is still a heavily promotional exercise in WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable individual and should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has been blocked for "disruptive editing: socking and likely undeclared paid editing". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a few articles written by a single group: [27], [28], plus some other coverage: [29], [30], [31]. Even though the first group of sources shares roughly the same authors, and the second group of sources doesn't contain a lot of coverage, the sources should demonstrate bare notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon Wikipedia is not a manual(Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.
These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity.) ref 1 is a passing mention, 3,4 has only one paragraph. 5 is just using the map to find licenses not treating the topic independently. Reference 2 details what LSM is and how they used it, but again wikipedia is not a manual and shouldn't have article on every single topic that is required to publish a software. It is better situated in perhaps Wikibook. Greatder (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is not just a passing mention, it contains plenty of coverage in pages 5-7. However, I'm just now seeing that ref 1 states that this group is closely connected to a major repository that uses LSM, the UNC MetaLab Linux Archives. That's enough to throw independence into doubt, so I'm withdrawing my keep vote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have we considered changing this to a disambiguation page instead of simply deleting it? I mean this IS a valuable point: chording has multiple definitions. That's a classic disambig situation. Blockyblock567 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chord (music), with a hatnote to Chording keyboard, based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. An in-text search on archive.org suggests that musical uses of "chording" are by far the most common, with the keyboard definition being at least a factor of ten less common (and even more so if you only look at the last 10 years). There are a few references to a third meaning in the design of electric motors, but nothing recent so it seems to have fallen out of use. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Adam Sampson's suggestion above makes the most sense. I don't think it would be a good idea to lose the link to chording in the typing sense entirely. Maybe also consider a hatnote to the disambiguation page Cording, as they are homophones in English? Not sure if that's acceptable practice though. Blockyblock567 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Adam. I couldn't find good coverage of chording in the term of this article; it certainly exists but I'm not sure it's a notable topic, and there's better places to redirect than just deleting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk15:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As metaheuristic algorithms still continue to be introduced at a pace of (conservatively) dozens per year, this list is arbitrary in nature, which is another argument for not having it.
For more context, there is an attempt to have such a listing elsewhere, also lagging behind the current state.
Another possible course of action is to clean the list up (to those algorithms with a Wiki page) and merge into the main article.
Keep. Optimization is too broad for this topic. If new ones are introduced, only major should be listed or some classification of them should be described (i.e. improve). Solar Apex (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is (Redacted). Please see 1, 2: 1. image author and uploader, 2. Nathan (Chaya's husband, a full professor in the Biu) - the same author and camera, a different date; image was taken at home: no Torah books at the math dept. in Biu, and (Redacted).
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect. WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Loeweopta:Are you arguing that Neriah is related to this professor just because Neriah took her picture? This doesn't really follow. Neriah was able to suppress the redirect because of their global rollback permission. International sources are not required to satisfy notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. As Helpful Raccoon has pointed out, international sources are not required to prove notability, and an alleged COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I'm unsure of whether the subject passes WP:NPROF, but I think she probably does pass WP:GNG on the basis of coverage like [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Her team's solution to Ringel's problem also got some press coverage, such as this article in Haaretz [39]. Maths isn't my area and I'm not too familiar with the sources that covered her so I'm very open to changing my mind here, but my sense is that her publications and awards aren't quite significant enough to meet WP:NPROF, but that the other coverage is probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per WP:TOOSOON. The best argument for notability I see is the Krill prize. Looking at the other recipients, I see a fairly prestigious early career prize, which I do not think meets WP:NPROF C2. (I think it indicates likely future notability.) The media coverage I see is so tightly tied to the Krill prize and localized in time that I think falls under WP:BLP1E. Watching in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete. Agree with Russ Woodroofe. This is a mid-career mathematician doing very strong work. In 5-10 years they probably will be more widely recognized and cited. So if we delete, I recommend it be done without prejudice towards a new page if WP:NPROF is met someday. I don't think her citation rate hits C1 yet. Like Russ, I could be swayed if better evidence is found. Qflib (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree she is not there on academic impact (WP:PROF#C1) yet; I think among the Ringel circle conjecture crew, only Shakhar Smorodinsky has a case for notability that way. The only plausible avenue for notability for Keller is the Krill Prize (maybe WP:PROF#C2) and the ensuing publicity (maybe WP:GNG) but I think that the prize's focus on "promising researchers", its national-level focus, and its "numerous recipients" [40] make it too low-level to demonstrate clear notability and that the publicity for it falls short of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think that there is enough notability for this article to be kept. Admittedly, the article is not massive, but there is enough content for it to be kept. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails the WP:NPROF criteria on almost every metric, with a dismal academic impact. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON and the subject will gain academic notability in the future, but since 'possible future notability' is not a reason for keeping a presently GNG non-compliant article, this should be deleted. Eelipe (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the current state of the article is pretty bad but I think we can make an article about this term. This paper from NIST discusses the effects of minimizing gate count on hardware efficiency; it appears to be used in quite a bit of quantum computing literature (see here); and this book has a couple sentences about how minimizing gate count "gives a simple estimate of the implementation cost of a reversible circuit" and minimizes "area and power consumption". I don't think this is the most notable topic in the world, but sufficient sourcing does exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perhaps I'll withdraw in that case. My searching was not exhaustive, so I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that this was simply a generic technical term, which isn't something inherently notable. If it's something important and notable within computing (not exactly my area of expertise), then it should indeed be kept. — Anonymous19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided the named sources are added. I agree that this looks like it should squeak by the notability threshold given this material, and it looks possible that more sources may be found later. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one may be close but appears to me to fail WP:NCORP. References from Venture Beat and The Next Web are churnalism based on the announcement of the company's launch back in 2012. There is this which appears to meet WP:ORGCRIT but everything else is routine announcements or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Business Journals piece, there's [41] from NPR and [42] from Forbes. Both seem significant and independent to me, so I think this would qualify as multiple examples of GNG. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WSJ, NPR, and the military publications are significantly about the company's product(s). I can't judge the reliability of the military pubs but they do provide information about product use that seems solid. That said, the article could use work if it's going to provide useful info. Lamona (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I am saying. And that I consider the military articles to be relevant and reliable. I also see other sources, such as:
"Cerego's iKnow! Wins Prestigious DEMOgod Award at DEMOfall 08." Science Letter, 30 Sept. 2008, p. 3270. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A185816485/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=aaa046a9. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
"McGraw-Hill Education and Cerego." Tech & Learning, vol. 35, no. 9, Apr. 2015, p. 48. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A419267807/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=04a4f19c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
"Cerego." Training, vol. 56, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2019, p. 8. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A608614910/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=b3437ac8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
CEREGO & BBC BITESIZE. (2019, March 1). Tech & Learning, 39(7), 39.
I looked at these and they don't seem to be re-hashes of PR (there is quite a lot of that). I haven't looked at how they might fit into the article. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the WSJ, NPR and the military sources. And here's another one relating to Cerego and BBC: [43]. I count this now as 5 sources. One could argue that they are more about the product than the company, and that comes up a lot with products. Ideally the article should decide which it is emphasizing. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant plural - "the others are mentions so they fall short." - BBC may meet CORPDEPTH, but the rest, including this one you just cited, is considered a routine announcement so fails WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP: NOTWEBHOST. We are not a website for hosting documentation, and this subject is not notable. Either of these being true is sufficient for deletion. The Knuth reference is a passing mention, and other citations appear to reference manuals for the language itself. There was a PROD more than a decade ago and the article's creator removed it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems mostly true but there is "Introduction to the TEX language - Part I" in the references section, which being in a magazine might not just be a reference guide. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That reference can be found on Google Books. The author mentions that they've served as an advisor in the development of the language. It's not an independent source, and even if it is, we generally need multiple sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author was Bob Bemer, a notable computer scientist known as the Father of ASCII. He was an evangelist for TEX and often wrote programs that forced the developers to add more features to the language, so in essence, he expanded the language capabilities while not being on the team.
I can't help but feel that removing this article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2007, serves any useful purpose. It describes a language that was part of the diaspora of computer software of the era. Jedishrfu (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the TEX article. I used the language while working at the GE Telecommunications and Information Processing Operation in Schenectady NY in the 1980s. GE was a big customer of Honeywell.
TEX was a software product offering for timesharing from Honeywell that we used to test each new OS release. it came with a large body of testing code and an application support library known as Texas. Bob Bemer was a Texan, a noted computer scientist and an evangelist for Tex.
My understanding is that both TEX and AWK were created around the same time using regular expressions and line editing ideas from Multics, Unix and GCOS operating systems. The notion of extending a line editor with programmability like TEX is quite novel.
Bob Bemer gave a talk on it at the HLSUA conference showcasing a screen editor written TEX. He als wrote about it on his blog which is long gone and a three part article for Interface Age. Bitsavers has a downloadable copy of the TEX manual. The interface age magazines can be found on the Internet Archive site.
Currently, there is no implementation running other one running on some old Honeywell 6000 timesharing service somewhere in the world. The original developers are also long gone and Bob Bemer died some years ago.
So do you have sources that shows that this subject meets WP: GNG? I'm uninterested in hearing about anything else, and it's very disrespectful to inject paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs of your own off-topic nonsense into this discussion. Blogs, first-party manuals, and mirrors of the software do not count towards notability, and I'm not going to waste my time fishing around for some magazine for you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Wikipedia rules and regulations are foreign to me.
All I know is this was a real Honeywell offering deserving of a page on Wikipedia. But should you decide to remove it there's little I can do except to look elsewhere to document these arcane seldom used languages.
I imagine roughly a hundred people would likely have used it based on it being offered as an extra licensing charge. The only reason GE bought it was to get the testing code as GE did customizations to the Honeywell OS prior to use on GE machines.
"very disrespectful to inject paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs of your own off-topic nonsense" "not going to waste my time fishing around for some magazine" These comments are not only obviously rude but borderline personal attacks to boot @HyperAccelerated. Nobody here is forcing you to fish for anything. If you can't be civil with people acting in good faith, don't reply. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I wrote is intended to be interpreted as a remark about the character of any particular editor, including the person I was responding to. If you feel that it is, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether you are arguing about Keeping this article or are in favor of Deleting it, we're talking about an article on an online encyclopedia, not life and death issues. If you find yourself too invested in the outcome that you start being flippant or harsh to other editors, it's time to find another activity to spend your time on, at least for the short-term. Civility is more important than whatever happens with this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:GNG. There are hosts for teaching these types of languages already. The history of such a topic though is not covered in independent reliable sources. I did find the Honeywell source, but it was incredible brief and not enough for a full article. Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a website for hosting documentation, manuals, or essays about the features of a particular language. See WP: NOTWEBHOST and not WP: HOWTO. Talk page discussion indicates that this appears to be a mirror of another tutorial page, and thus there might be copyright issues here as well. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're here to complain because you personally feel that this content is "useful" (which everyone knows is a terrible argument that wastes valuable volunteer time, per WP: USEFUL), then we can transwiki this content to another place, such as Wikibooks, or selectively merge content to Fortran. Please remember that this AfD is not your soapbox to wax poetic about your purely subjective notion of "usefulness". It is to determine whether it violates Wikipedia policy; specifically WP: NOTWEBHOST, WP: NOTHOWTO, and Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted materials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could talk about histories an all that non-stop, but for some, it is sometimes just down to the features or the support of the language that makes it unique from others. Labratscientist (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple massive sections in the main Fortran article that already talk about the language's evolution. If you think that the content there is sufficient, this article isn't necessary and should be deleted. If you think that it isn't, then you've just made a great argument for merging. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selected content, with added citations to Fortran. This is a very, very long article with only a single reference. I appreciate the work that went into it but this belongs on wikibooks or similar. BTW, while a lot of this reads more like a tutorial, we could use more detail on language features and syntax in programming articles here on Wikipedia in general! I welcome those involved in this article to improve the Fortran article. That article does not have a syntax section, is not well organized, and does not have a comprehensive overview of the language features and syntax. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been badly written, over a period of 20 years, by many editors (at least one of whom one would think would know to cite sources — but, no, not a one) but that it has only one citation does not mean that many sources do not exist. I picked the "INQUIRE statement" from the bottom of the article to see what reference books come up covering just that. Before I ran out of steam, there being much more than what I cite here, I got:
"Other FORTRAN I/O statements". FORTRAN in MTS. MTS, the Michigan Terminal System. Vol. 6. University of Michigan Computing Center. October 1983. p. 356.
Carnahan, Brice; Wilkes, James O. (1989). "Additional input and output features". FORTRAN 77 with MTS and the IBM PS/2. College of Engineering, University of Michigan. p. 8—23.
Redwine, Cooper (2012). "Input/Output". Upgrading to Fortran 90. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 442–227. ISBN 9781461225621.
Gehrke, Wilhelm, ed. (2012). "Input/Output". Fortran 90 Language Guide. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 11—41–11—46. ISBN 9781447130147.
Behforooz, Ali; Sharma, Onkar P. (1986). "INQUIRE statement". FORTRAN 77 Syntax. Prentice-Hall. pp. 100–101. ISBN 9780835932738.
Counihan, Martin (2006). "Appendix A: Input and Output". Fortran 95 (2nd ed.). CRC Press. pp. 339–342. ISBN 9780203978467.
Adams, Jeanne C.; Brainerd, Walter S.; Hendrickson, Richard A.; Maine, Richard E.; Martin, Jeanne T.; Smith, Brian T. (2008). "Input and Output Processing". The Fortran 2003 Handbook: The Complete Syntax, Features and Procedures. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 346–361. ISBN 9781846287466.
Ramaraman, V. (1997). "Processing Files in Fortran". Computer programming in FORTRAN 90 and 95. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. pp. 282–283. ISBN 9788120311817.
Metcalf, Michael; Reid, John; Cohen, Malcolm; Bader, Reinhold (2024). "Operations on external files". Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran 2023 (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 279–283. ISBN 9780198876595.
Joshi, Yogendra Prasad. "Use of files and related statements". An Introduction to Fortran 90/95: Syntax and Programming. Allied Publishers. pp. 388–397. ISBN 9788177644746.
Brainerd, Walter S. (2009). "Input and Output". Guide to Fortran 2003 Programming. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 294–299. ISBN 9781848825437.
Chamberland, Luc (1995). "INQUIRE". Fortran 90: A Reference Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 270–272. ISBN 9780133973327.
Some people have a lot of {{sfn}}s to add, but it is possible, and this extent of content is verifiable. Indeed, some of the aforementioned reference books have more on the INQUIRE statement than this article has. The current article is actually shorter than references on the subject. So not only is it verifiable, there's even scope for expansion. And yes, it should be clear from the chapter titles that it's not just the INQUIRE statement section of the article that these references support.
I think there are bigger issues here than the sourcing, though I agree with Caleb that the lack of sources in this article is independently problematic. We don’t host tutorials about how to use programming languages, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a repository of cookbooks, tutorials, and mirrors of documentation. This literature should be used to supplement the existing article we have about Fortran. There are many things I can think of that are verifiable but do not warrant standalone articles. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a tutorial in any way. Clearly, you have never encountered a tutorial. They do not look remotely like this article. This is encyclopaedic reference. The bigger issue is in reality your not understanding the basics of the policy, and what the difference between a tutorial and a reference work is. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re way too fixated on the word “tutorial” here. Even if some part of this article doesn’t meet your weirdly strict definition of the word “tutorial”, it does not change the fact that we generally do not host mirrors of documentation or the nitty-gritty details about how the language works. We can discuss all day the difference between a tutorial, a manual, and a mirror of a documentation page, but the bottom line is that this is not an encyclopedic reference: it is a collection of indiscriminate information. In any case, I’m unlikely to be persuaded to go the other way on this issue, especially by someone who berates me by claiming I don’t understand basic policy. :) HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the normal everyday world's differentiation between totorials and reference works seems "weird" to you, then you do not have enough experience of real world tutorials. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. While I agree that some content is verifiable and can be salvaged, I would still favor moving such content into Fortran - and rewriting it to be a bit less like a tutorial, and more like an encyclopedic overview of the language. I agree with HyperAccelerated here. Thanks! 17:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC) Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just some, it's almost certainly all content being verifiable, as the books are even more detailed than this article is, and (when I checked out their structures) seem to cover the same ground overall as this article does outwith the inquire statement section.
Moreover, this is nothing like a tutorial. In fact it is an encyclopadic overview of the language, and quite clearly reference material not tutorial. Go and read a few tutorials. They provide instructions. They have worked-through problems showing how they are solved, literally step-by-step "how-to" stuff. They set exercises to the reader. This article provides description. There's not a single instruction to the reader anywhere in it.
Arjen Markus's Modern Fortran in Practice (CUP, 2012) is a tutorial. It has chapters like chapter 9 on "Code Reviews", with sections saying "Be explict" (literally the 9.1 section heading) telling readers directly how to do things. Davis Miller's Learn Fortran (self-published, 2025) is a tutorial. Its chapter 2 starts off with a numbered step-by-step set of instructions, written in the imperative, on how-to begin doing the thing that the chapter is about. Rubin Landau's A First Course in Scientific Computing (PUP, 2005) is a tutorial (notionally with FOTRAN90 in it, but it seems to have been retargeted at Java without changing the part titles). Chapters start by setting a problem, then work through a solution to the problem, and end with setting further problems as exercises to the reader.
Really, you should both learn what tutorials actually are.
If HyperAccelerated and you weren't so erroneously using it as a rationale, it wouldn't have to be explained. You have yourselves to blame. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the word "tutorial" is not central to either of our objections. It is not either of our faults that you continue to insinuate otherwise. The core objection that both of us have is that we generally do not host information about the very, very fine details about a language, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP: INDISCRIMINATE) or a web host that mirrors gobs of content from other places (see WP: NOTWEBHOST), regardless of what someone said on a mailing list two decades ago. Caleb's a PL professor, and while I'm not saying that you should take everything they say as gospel, I'm pretty sure that someone who teaches students about programming languages for a living knows what a tutorial is.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think this AFD needs more discussion. But, foremost, I know you dislike doing this User:Uncle G but are you actually arguing to "Keep" this article as is? A closer shouldn't have to read between the lines in an AFD discussion and infer what you mean as far as the outcome of this discussion. Or would Merge be acceptable to you? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two main reasons:
1. Each version of Fortran has significant differences. Merging this into one monster Fortran page would be a disservice to readers/coders. As one example, Fortran 90 is common, 95 is an extension and both are massively different from Fortran 77.
2. There is a vast body of scientific code written in a Fortran 90/95. Fortran remains the 900lb gorilla, and almost certainly will for the next 20 or so years. (Disclosure: I am one of several contributor to a > 10**6 line Fortran 90 code.)
Did you even bother to read the rationale, which states that this article violates WP: NOTWEBHOST and WP: NOTHOWTO? This whole "lack of sources has never been grounds for deletion if they exist" is false, because we routinely delete articles on basis of a lack of quality sourcing. Also, even if you were somehow correct about this, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Furthermore, the number of versions a piece of software has does not matter, because Wikipedia is not a WP: CHANGELOG either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a spinout article. If you took just one minute to read the Talk page discussion or the rationale, you would know that this is a mirror of someone's writings about Fortran, not a WP: SPINOUT. Have you read either of these two things? HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that is hardly relevant. The copyright issues can be solved by editing: the article should not be deleted on these grounds. It is a spinout in the broad sense it covers a topic that would be too long to cover in the main Fortran article. cyclopiaspeak!23:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were one paragraph, I’d be inclined to agree. But all or nearly all of the content is a potential copyright violation. We’d have to blow up the article to fix the copyright issue: WP: TNT would apply. If you’re suggesting we just rearrange a couple words and keep the content substantively the same, that’s not how copyright works. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...which is another essay, and not policy. Sorry, but IDGAF about random essays. I mean, they're useful summaries of opinions/arguments shared by part of the community, but that's it. You disagree? Come back when it becomes policy. cyclopiaspeak!16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a random essay, because we have deleted plenty of articles on the basis of WP: TNT in the past. It is something that has force, whether you like it or not. You disagree? Come back when you can show me that we've never deleted an article on the basis of WP: TNT. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the essay states:
Deleting severely deficient articles through the WP:AFD process is grounded in established policy. According to WP:DEL-REASON, "Reasons for deletion include [...] 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Similarly, WP:ATD states: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.
«It's not a random essay, because...» It is a random essay. Let me know when it becomes policy (or waste your time on the keyboard pretending they "have force", I don't care). cyclopiaspeak!18:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, there aren't any copyright issues to solve. HyperAccelerated is misrepresenting that as much as xe is misrepresenting the nature of the article as a tutorial. Mr.Fortran (talk· contribs) dual-licenced xyr contributions; as explained on the talk page 19 years ago, and as acknowledged by the copyright owner xyrself 19 years ago, too. This is a wholly contrived resurrection of a non-issue; and HyperAccelerated saying to others to take 1 minute to read the talk page discussion, when reading it reveals the dual licensing, is ironic. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the dual licensing thing but I was unsure of how actually it worked in this case - that is, if the contribution could actually be dual-licensed etc. cyclopiaspeak!16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is structured much like many of the sources. This is unsurprising, as both the article and the sources are the way that people know the subject.
Take Redwine's book, for example. The article has a section on control statements. Redwine has a chapter 3 on control constructs. The article has sections on modules and accessibility. Redwine has chapter 7 on modules and chapter 12 on accessibility. The article has a section on derived data types. Redwine has the entirety of chapter 5 on derived types. And so on.
And that's just one of the potential sources. Gehrke, for another, has an entire chapter 6 on array processing, with a section on assumed-shape arrays; and the article has a section on array handling with a subsection on assumed-shape arrays. Gehrke has chapter 7 on expressions and chapter 8 on assignments; and the article has a section on expressions and assignments. Gehrke deals with integer, real, double precision, complex, logical, character, and binary/octal/hax literal constants in chapter 3; the article goes through the same subjects, subsection by subsection, in the same order.
It's entirely possible to match everything up. It's just going to be a lot of {{sfn}}s and reading the books. (I have done this with many articles over the years that were created before we even got the <ref>...</ref> mechanism.) Yes, it involves reading. But encyclopaedists should be no strangers to reading.
Indeed, to take the COMPLEX section as just one example, the article even now has scope for expansion. Gehrke gives a more thorough and better explanation on page 3—5 than our article's 1 sentence treatment does.
Just for form's sake, Liz: This is an article that is verifiable from multiple reliable sources, ranging from CRC Press to IBM. A whole load of said sources are cited in the article, because I put them there, in a way that makes {{sfn|Gehrke|2012|p=3—5|loc=§3.6.3}} and the like just work when someone comes along who wants to do all of the tedious cross-linking; and there are many more. It is not an idiosyncratic representation of the subject, having ironically and acknowledgedly been written here in Wikipedia by Michael Metcalfe, author of several books on FORTRAN, including the FORTRAN 23 version of Modern Fortran Explained published just last year by Oxford University Press. So a subject expert came and gave us an article, amusingly explaining that xe had already written other encyclopaedia articles on the subject along the way. It's a verifiable, no original research encyclopaedia article by a subject expert whose only sin is to lack {{sfn}}s (because it was written in 2006) and give the subject too superficial a treatment in many places, something which Metcalfe even acknowledged (Xe couldn't dual licence that other encyclopaedia article, which would have given Wikipedia a better one, so xe had to start from another basis.) when xe wrote this. It could not be a more obvious keep as a good stub with clear scope for expansion, per deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A bibliography does not prove that there is no original research in the article. Can someone who thinks this article should be kept add inline citations for every claim made in the article to show that there is no original research? There's obviously other objections to the article being kept, but I think that's a reasonable ask. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan trifecta signComments. I would like to make a request of all the editors who are responding here: can you please clarify whether you have been an extensive coder in Fortran, or if you consider it an obsolete language and code in C++, C, Python or whatever. I think this is very important context. Programmers in Fortran are almost certain to have a very different view of this article. I have done some programming in a line software used by about 3000 groups around the world, Wien2k. It is mainly in Fortran 90 with bits of 95 and a few smaller bits of C and Python.
I have added a few sources at the front, and detailed that everything in the document is sourced to the references included there and also the biography. If the vote is to insist on the letter of WP standards and inline source everything, then your replicate these everywhere. Or just remove the whole article. I consider the latter to be a major disservice to the wider community. I think this is a case where Wikipe-tan is really right and WP:Break all rules applies. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I still would have nominated this article if it was about C++, C, or Python. We are not a mirror of cppreference.com or python.org. Not interested in how many lines of code you've written in your life, and IAR is not a perennial escape hatch to justify terrible positions. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article only mentions AE Industrial Partners once: "The person also pointed out that Paragon was now a US-owned company, following its takeover by AE Industrial Partners.". This is a trivial mention and plainly does not rise to the standard of significant coverage necessary. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you've read and fully understood WP: SIGCOV. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
