Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Computing

edit

Appin (company)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Appin (company) (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)

Appin closed in 2013. The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP:SOCK (see latest changes). Delete according to WP:ATTACK which summarizes that the article has a denigrating purpose, rather than an informational one. WP:NPOV and WP:LBL, because the article is only about calmony even if it is quoted by notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon van Buitenen

edit
Gideon van Buitenen (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)

Previously draftified as not ready for mainspace. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits a unilateral move back to draft space, though it is still not ready. However, I feel this fails WP:BIO, and that it will be impossible to assert and to verify notability. It is a pleasant resumé, but not a Wikipedia article. It is also WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Global

edit
Verne Global (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:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources on subject itself to establish notability. Was previously tagged for notability and other issues for years. Article created by WP:SPA

Disputed PROD. Seems there are WP:COI users coming out all of a sudden when this page hadn't been edited since March this year. Imcdc Contact 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be wholly promotional CR (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Iceland datacenter is interesting, although I didn't find any substantial & independent sources for that. (There's one from Intel but it is a "customer spotlight" clearly written by Verne.) I have no idea if there could be Icelandic sources. I didn't find any sources about the company beyond the usual company profiles. The blatant COI is rather disturbing, coupled with their inability to take a hint. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

edit
IREDES (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)

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15.ai

edit
AfDs for this article:
15.ai (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)

Procedural nomination. This article was recently deleted by consensus. A deletion review process was filed; the filer meanwhile created a new fresh draft using different sources which was passed by a reviewer at AfC. I have closed the DRV, so that the new draft may be evaluated on its own merits. By this nomination, I make no judgements on the outcome. BusterD (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD was procedurally created because an old version of the article was deleted as a result of a previous AfD, which was largely due to the misbehaving of new Wikipedia editors who participated in sockpuppetry and canvassing, and as such the new research and citations I found after relisting were not taken into consideration. In the previous AfD, it’s worth noting that after my new sources were posted, no new delete votes were submitted. As per advice given to me by User:Liz and other Wikipedia administrators, I was encouraged to create a new draft of the article from scratch and submit it to AfC, which I did, and the newly written article was accepted via AfC within several hours by an impartial third party who was not previously aware of the AfD and DRV. I followed all of the correct processes as was recommended to me by experienced editors. User:Barkeep49, the closer of the previous AfD, can attest to the fact that I did not have a copy of the old version of the article when I wrote this new version from scratch.
According to archived discussions on the Teahouse, a good rule of thumb is three independent and reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Here are the major reliable sources that provide significant coverage for the subject:
  • [NEW] United Daily News [4]. Reliable as one of the largest and oldest-running newspapers in Taiwan. Listed as one of the three major Chinese-language newspapers in List of newspapers in Taiwan. Significant coverage includes an overview of the technology behind 15.ai, particularly noting its ease of use and limited data, and also discusses how 15.ai works, its features, and the viral videos that have spawned using 15.ai. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Chinese) words of coverage.
  • Den Fami Nico Gamer [5]. Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. Significant coverage includes an overview of the DeepMoji technology used for emotiveness, applications of the voices not restricted to viral videos, and how to use it. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
  • AUTOMATON [6]. While not listed in WP:VG/RS, AUTOMATON is one of the largest and reputable gaming news outlets in Japan, and has been used in multiple GA's like Only Up!, Visions of Mana, and Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada. Significant coverage includes DeepMoji, a list of characters available on the application, examples of video content users have created with the platform, an overview of the pronunciation capabilities of the model, as well as a mention of how to use ARPAbet strings. Almost 800 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
  • [NEW] Rionaldi Chandraseta [7]. While the article itself is written on Medium (which is not considered reliable), Medium is only being used as a vessel to host the article itself (similar to how Google Docs can be used to host an article), which is part of a very popular newsletter called Towards Data Science, which has almost 800K followers on social media. Following alone means nothing in determining the reliability of a source, but Rionaldi Chandraseta, the author of the article, is an IEEE-published machine learning specialist who has published papers that are listed on Google Scholar [8]. The newsletter has a solid editorial board [9] that consists of multiple masters and PhD's in machine learning and computer science. Over 1,000 words of English-language coverage detailing every facet of 15.ai, from its capabilities to its underlying research.
  • [NEW] Yongqiang Li [10]. Since the article is locked to foreigners without an account, I asked a friend to translate this for me. The article goes into great detail about the technology behind 15.ai and talks about its features, its future, and potential problems. The author is a professor at the Harbin Institute of Technology and has multiple publications listed on Google Scholar [11] and ResearchGate [12].
  • Eurogamer [13]. Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. While the main focus of the article isn't 15.ai, it goes into detail the controversy and Twitter exchange that happened when Voiceverse NFT misappropriated 15.ai's work. From However, in now-deleted tweets, Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service. to "Hey @fifteenai we are extremely sorry about this," Voiceverse NFT wrote. "The voice was indeed taken from your platform, which our marketing team used without giving proper credit. Chubbiverse team has no knowledge of this. We will make sure this never happens again.", this is about 300 words of coverage.
  • Stevivor [14]. After doing more research, I found that Steven Wright, the author of this article, also writes for Inverse, a solid and well-known technology and gaming publication. In addition, Stevivor is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region.
  • Kotaku [15]. While Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS, it also states News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, (the article is from 2021, so it meets this criteria) but also states although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. It's still debated whether an article from the "Odds and Ends" category is considered "News", and the entry in WP:VG/RS says articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no clear consensus to this, but the description for the "Odds and Ends" category is "Odds and Ends - Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.". The argument in the previous AfD was that this article did not meet reliability, although it met independence and significant coverage. I personally believe that this article is reliable.
  • Game Informer, PC Gamer, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun [16] [17] [18] All three of these sources are found under WP:VG/RS, but there has been a debate whether these three met significant coverage. While they all pass WP:100WORDS, it is not a Wikipedia policy and their significant coverage can be debated.
  • NME [19]. WP:RS notes NME is reliable in its expertise, and it has been debated whether gaming is one of their areas of expertise. The Wikipedia article for NME states that this is so, and gaming is listed as one of NME's header sections, but there has been debate whether NME's expertise extends outside of music. Similar coverage to Eurogamer, but with fewer words, but still above the threshhold for WP:100WORDS (which, again, is not Wikipedia policy).
  • Andrew Ng [20]. The author, Andrew Ng, is one of the most famous and influential artificial intelligence researchers in the world, with a healthy Google Scholar profile [21] and was included in the Time 100 Most Influential People in AI list in 2023. While 15.ai is mentioned as a blurb and likely does not meet significant coverage, it shows that the subject wasn't a mere curiosity and was under the radar for a large number of prominent figures in AI while the service was active.
However, some of these have been contested in some form, the arguments for which I personally disagreed with. Think of these sources as you will. I still haven't gone over many of the the sources that are used in the newly written page, but I will continue to do my research and update this.
Yes, I'm aware that this is a contentious article that was submitted to AfD. But the AfD was closed largely due to the misbehaving of new Wikipedia editors, who are likely to be children, which is not surprising given the popularity of the application among younger people. I'm committed to doing this subject justice, and I argue that this subject not only meets the bare minimum of notability, but meets it well-within question. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought the AfC submission was okay but should have been with a different AfC reviewer. Someone who was not involved with these past discussions. This AfD is overkill. – The Grid (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Grid For clarity, as the AFC reviewer in question, I was entirely uninvolved with the initial 15.ai discussions and didn't know of their existence at all. I was only notified of them after I'd already passed the article. I've been keeping an eye on these newer discussions that followed my review, but for the case of the initial review, I was an entirely uninvolved third party. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no complaint with User:Pokelego999's review of the article. I've commented at AfC talk that comparing new submissions to recently deleted versions is probably a wise precaution. We should not generally be passing drafts which are currently at deletion review, IMHO. Is your namespace currently the subject of a deletion process? That seems like a quick fail. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references in the article clearly show enough coverage to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NWEB and WP:GNG.—Alalch E. 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the source list above states there are three new sources not discussed in the last, and recently closed deletion discussion. This turns out to be incorrect. Let's look at them:
    1. United Daily News [22] - this was, in fact, considered at the last AfD. I commented on it on 11 December.
    2. Towards data science [23] was also introduced at the last AfD. I commented on that one at the same time.
    3. Yongqiang Li [24] is indeed locked and has the world's most annoying CAPTCHA! I cannot review it.
    So we are here again, but we are, in fact, looking at essentially the same sources as the AfD that just closed as delete, and for which the deletion was endorsed. We still do not have information that establishes the notability of the subject or describes it beyond what the website actually did. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but we are, in fact, looking at essentially the same sources as the AfD that just closed as delete, and for which the deletion was endorsed. I'm sorry, but this is false. I posted those new sources on December 9 after the 2nd AfD was relisted for discussion, and all of the delete votes in that AfD were submitted before these new sources were found. You can check the timestamps in the AfD to verify that the deletion was endorsed because they were predicated on the article not having the new sources that I spent all weekend finding. To reiterate, this is what happened: the old version of the article was nominated for deletion (without the new sources), then six delete votes came in assessing that the old version of the article did not sufficiently demonstrate notability, then the discussion was relisted, then I spent an entire weekend researching new sources on different language websites and posted a lengthy explanation of the sources I found, and then not a single person voted delete after that, and then due to the rampant socking and canvassing that had happened before the relisting and before I had posted the new sources, the AfD was closed as a delete. The new sources were never considered by the people who voted delete other than yourself. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well that is a different definition of new to the one I was using. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant by new was new compared to the reason why the old article was voted to be deleted in the first place. The new sources I found in between the 2nd AfD and DRV was never given a thorough examination, so I included those sources with the "new" sources I found in between the DRV and the 3rd AfD. It demonstrates that this new version of the article is substantially different from the one that was justifiably deleted, and I believe that definition of "new" is the more relevant one in a discussion where editors discuss whether this new article should be kept or not. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3 is free and not locked, but requires logging in/free registration and a competent translator. It seems to be the same kind of source as the TowardsDataScience article. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the CAPTCHA is gone today. Yesterday it had a CAPTCHA which presented 8 symbols to be placed in order, but the symbols appeared to be totally random. Like a rabbit, a boat, a mountain... Anyway, the article does not provide significant coverage beyond what the website did. As for all the others. Does not demonstrate notability. No idea about reliability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still not notable, coverage was and is limited to "look at this cool app" articles. I haven't found anything substantial, since this was nominated again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm against deleting this article, because the site was a big deal when it came out and was groundbreaking at the time. Reading this article is an easy way to learn about the history of the site. I know that's not related to the discussion about sources, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in anyway, just in case. Dogman15 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources listed above, which establish notability per GNG. Frank Anchor 22:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep, as I agree with the arguments of Madness more than Sirfur's. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I have not expressed any arguments here yet. I have merely pointed out that we are looking at exactly the same set of sources as in the AfD that closed as delete on 17 December. 4 days ago. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant the arguments you argued last time, which seem representative of quite a bit of the opposition from last time. (I could be wrong; I only took a cursory glance at the other opposition.) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete - not substantially different from the version which was deleted via consensus (a consensus which was well on its way to being confirmed at DRV) 72 hours previously. Consensus needs to be respected and "I submitted new sources at the last AfD but no one looked at them" is not a reason not to. The new sources which aren't on WP:MEDIUM don't add anything new (and I refuse to consider anything which is). I concur with Oaktree b's analysis. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 01:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEDIUM says it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert, which the author is. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Four papers on Google Scholar, with only one that has a total of four cites seems low to me, but I'm open to being wrong on this. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 02:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well… I'm a 4th year PhD student researching topological deep learning, and I would consider myself a subject matter expert on differential topology and deep learning even though I only have a couple of papers with a total of zero citations… GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. After doing more research, I've found that articles from Towards Data Science are also listed on Google Scholar. This article [25], for example, has 172 cites on Google Scholar, and this one [26], has over 1027(!) cites on Google Scholar, which indicates that the newsletter is a legitimate publication with other papers on Google Scholar frequently citing them. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the last close was well within the closer's discretion. I also believe that this discretion is only so high due to the amount of disruption, and I believe that we should have some discussion without any disruption.
    In the conversation with Sirfurboy, we agreed that precedent says such reviews should count towards notability, but we also reached a point of ideologically disagreeing whether they should. Note that he did not !vote on those "should" grounds, and that's not what I intend to say.
    I don't see why such "look at this cool app" articles fail non-trivial coverage or don't count towards notability. Now, are we about to argue the "should"? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content has primacy over process. Tidy process can't trump valid encyclopedic content. —Alalch E. 09:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak DeleteDraftify, as alternative to deletion, per discovering that Business News Ledger appears to be an unreliable source. I think the new version meets WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. It might need improvement, but I think GregariousMadness did a good job. Moreover, I think the strongest source added by far is the [27] which is a publication that talks about the history and impact of 15.ai. Honestly, I don't know why GregariousMadness isn't leading the charge with the Business News Ledger piece instead of the sources they listed above which were mostly about a controversy involving 15.ai(person) and said little about the webapp or otherwise represent trivial coverage/ExpertSPS's. The Business News Ledger article is more substantial and does more than just cover the quirky fun app and its voices. Unless the Business News Ledger is determined to be an unreliable source, it seems like the most substantial source available that pushes the article over the line for me. Anywho, as the person who nominated the article last time I wanted to chime in. I also don't think the article should be punished because GregariousMadness jumped the gun before the Deletion Review finished. Cheers! --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we sure the Business News Ledger is reliable though? I have never heard of them and a Google search is bringing up nothing on the source themselves. SportingFlyer T·C 05:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't include it in my initial post because I wasn't entirely sure if it was reliable (and I wanted to make the absolute strongest case for the article by only including sources that were 100% reliable), but I did see that the outlet was listed under Google News (that's how I found the article, a search of "15.ai" and "voice"). But judging purely from the contents of the article, everything seems to check out as it essentially retells the story in the developer's Twitter article along with other verifiable details on the subject that weren't present in the Twitter article. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Business News Ledger are a small outfit registered in Los Angeles, but appear to employ a small number of journalists with editorial oversight from Travon Marner. The piece is written by Esperanza Squire, who has written many articles on the site. It is not exactly the New York Times, but I am not seeing any reason why it is unreliable. Agree that this is the best source we should be focussing on. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wellllllll, I feel like a bit of a silly-billy now. The source did seem substantial, but I didn't do a deep dive into it or anything but at a glance, it seemed legitimate if not small. I checked RSN and there hasn't been any discussion about it before, so that wasn't helpful. Ultimately it seemed to have editors, the person who wrote the article says they're a journalist, there's different articles on the site by different authors and the site has been around since 2018, during which time it said it focused on Canadian business news, but has since changed their mission statement to say global business news. To be honest, I am in the process of actively retiring from Wikipedia so I wasn't planning on diving deep into this but now I'm down a rabbit hole. So, my first problem is that none of the authors seem to exist. Several of them claim to have written for this publication, that publication, or another publication but I cannot find them anywhere on said publications. Moreover, in 2018 we have this [28] article which of the author reads Fay Kadri graduated from Columbia University in 2005, but here [29] same picture, different name, similar story Rachel Knox graduated from Columbia University in 2005. Rachel grew up in Canada but moved to the US and then there's this twitter account [30] same picture, yet another different name? Same story here, [31] fake author using the picture of someone else [32]. This[33] does also say The information is provided by Business News Ledger and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. So, my apologies. It would seem that while the article seemed good, the site very likely is an unreliable source. That's on me for not digging deeper into the source. Almost all of the author profiles I mentioned as fake also use the same While studying journalism at [x], with [x] just being an American city as if a university name is supposed to go there. Overall, given that they are definitely stealing pictures and making up journalists I think Business News Ledger is definitely unreliable after doing a deeper dive. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this assessment. Alalch has now removed content only sourced to BNL and 𝕏. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep this brief to explain my weak delete without further editing my own post:
    • Zhihu is WP:USERGEN, the author of the article might qualify for WP:EXPERTSPS, which doesn't confer notability. 知乎，中文互联网高质量的问答社区和创作者聚集的原创内容平台 Roughly translated, Zhihu, a Chinese language online Q&A community and a platform for original content creators to gather.
    • Andrew Ng The Batch, WP:SPS, does not confer notability.
    • Per WP:MEDIUM, Towards data science can be considered WP:EXPERTSPS, does not confer notability.
    • United Daily News cites the GameInformer article at the bottom of the page.
    • Eurogamer, NME, et al. all discuss 15.ai(Person)'s response to Voiceverse and provide no actual content about 15.ai
    • Kotaku is only WP:VG/RS for News, Odds and Ends is the bloggy/geeky content editors are cautioned against. Particularly described as These stories defy categorization, hopefully in a good way.[34] Kotaku as whole reads Gaming Reviews, News, Tips, and More so that isn't a specific notice on Odds and Ends
    Beyond that, my opinion on the other sources remains unchanged from the last AfD in that I do not believe they meet the requirements of WP:NOTINTERNET. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's say that the sourcing is a bit lacking according to certain norms. What's the resulting problem with the content, manifesting as an inability to write content which complies with the core content policies? —Alalch E. 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem with the sources provided is, has been, and remains WP:NOTINTERNET which states Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance. The reliable sources only describe the nature, appearance, or services the website offers. None of the reliable sources provide any detail on the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance. Since Wikipedia:Core_content_policies, despite very confusingly being called "Core content policies", says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and is listed as an explanatory essay about NPOV, while WP:NOTINTERNET is listed as policy. From my understanding, then, the failure to meet the requirements laid out on WP:NWEB and WP:NOTINTERNET means that the article should be deleted. Likewise, WP:NWEB stipulates Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content... for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content [35] emphasis added, which states that even if the webcontent does manage to meet the guidelines for notability, it should not have an article if you cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the website. The sources in question all provide more or less the same surface level information about how 15.ai was made by some person at MIT and that it uses these specific technologies to allow the creation of [x] voice. That does not, to me, represent in-depth coverage. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply, I really appreciate it. About achievements and legacy (paraphrasing from the article): In the history of deep learning speech synthesis, this is the the website that offered "voice cloning for the masses". The website is the first example of a website using this technology that reached such popularity. It popularized audio deepfakes in memes and content creation. It interpreted emojis in prompts to generate emotional prosody and "the amount of control that [users could] use to tweak how words and phrases are pronounced [was] pretty deep". As a trending and innovative thing, it was illegitimately exploited and was copied after it became defunct. It had a big reception in the My Little Pony fandom and resulted in many viral videos being created using it. When I mentioned the core content policies I meant the policies Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research (not the page "Wikipedia:Core content policies" as such). NOTINTERNET is also a policy, but because the article, unlike what you say, does in fact establish the website's achievements, impact, and historical significance, NOTINTERNET does not indicate deletion, and the content is suitable encyclopedic content under the core content policies, so there is not need to delete the page. This is a serviceable article, it is not out of place in an encyclopedia and clearly has some educational value. —Alalch E. 11:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, I will respond to this one more time, and I will note that unless a substantial source is located, I won't change my mind about Draftify. I will explain my reasoning, though.
    In the history of deep learning speech synthesis, this is the the website that offered "voice cloning for the masses". The website is the first example of a website using this technology that reached such popularity.
    My stance remains until a reliable source says that, it cannot be said on Wikipedia. None of the sources in the entirety of the background section of 15.ai presently, say this about 15.ai Examining the Background section that actually uses sources which mention 15.ai, the most substantial one seems to be Towards Data Science, again, a self-published source. [36] and is ultimately more survey of what 15.ai does, and offers no real information beyond describing what the website does and how it does it.
    • he/she claims that this new technique beats SV2TTS in data efficiency and naturalness
    • The one part I could not agree on is the “faster-than-real-time” claim, because the voice generation is quite slow and not real-time. However, this might be caused by the queue of requests sent by other users.
    • Compared to other TTS technique, 15.ai is able to mimic a character with very little data
    • I could not verify how good is the result with only 15 seconds of data, but the voice of Portal’s Sentry Turret only has ~100 seconds of data and it surprisingly sounds pretty good.My hypothesis is the model can benefit from the training data of other characters too, which explains why a character with very little data can still produce quality result.
    • Another interesting thing from 15.ai is how it uses DeepMoji to predict the emotion of a sentence. Currently, we could not manually set the emotion of the voice, as the only available choice for emotion is “Contextual” which uses DeepMoji.
    • Compared to what I remembered when creating voices with Lyrebird, the quality of voices done by 15.ai is miles ahead of it.
    • Just like DeepFake, this technology has a potential to become a dangerous tool for creating fake speech, but I believe that this would open a lot of possibilities such as creating your own voice assistant to replace Google Assistant’s, Siri’s or Alexa’s voice.
    None of this information differs from what the other sources provide. It also doesn't verify anything about the section that reads A significant challenge... high-quality voice synthesis from limited data, such as transfer learning and few-shot learning techniques which the source is attached to, with the only other source being the creator's twitter account, which is not independent of the subject. Notability is conferred by the sources, and while popularity/fame might enhance the acceptability of a subject, the fact that memes that blew up and went viral were created using 15.ai does not inherently make it notable. Per WP:NRV, the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest
    As I noted last AfD, the dates:
    • April 1, 2020 - The Batch (Trivial Mention in a long newsletter, SPS, and possibly not independent coverage of 15.ai since Andrew Ng mentions an e-mail with the creator.)
    • January 17, 2021 - Kotaku (Odds & Ends is Bloggy/Geeky Content, cautioned against by VG/RS)
    • January 18, 2021 - Den Fami Nico, GameInformer, RockPaperShotgun, GamerSky (Brief Summaries of site functionality/service)
    • January 19, 2021 - Automaton, PC Gamer, Byteside (Brief Summaries of site functionality/service)
    • January 20, 2021 - United Daily News (Brief Summaries of site functionality/service, sourced from GameInformer)
    • January 21, 2021 - Towards Data Science (SPS)
    • January 22, 2021 - Zhihu (SPS)
    • January 17, 2022 - Eurogamer (Trivial Mention)
    • January 18, 2022 - Stevivor, NME (Trivial Mentions)
    The coverage spans roughly 4 to 5 days, depending on international time differences. The coverage outside of that time frame is either (a) Not independent of the subject, (b) focused more on the product creator's response rather than actually discussing 15.ai significantly, or (c) extremely trivial mentions. This source [37] currently used mentions 15.ai in a single sentence which says it launched in 2020, This source [38] has one sentence that says 15.ai is a notable example of voice deepfakes. The article uses "Equestria Daily" as a source, but Equestria Daily is only considered reliable per RSN in terms of content such as interviews with the production staff of My Little Pony[39], so doesn't count toward notability (and probably shouldn't be used at all). RSN seemed of the opinion that ElevenLabs, Speechify, Play.ht, etc. are likely not reliable sources[40]. Play.ht was noted to be particularly bad at the RSN.
    So from my understanding, NOTINTERNET does indicate deletion because the section of the article you mention fails verification from independent sources. In terms of impact, a video titled "Among Us Struggles" that went viral in 2020 does not demonstrate 15.ai was the cause of that if there isn't a source saying that 15.ai caused these things to be popular. Consider that "Among Us Struggles" was released in September 2020 and accrued 5,000,000+ views, and then look at Google Trends [41]. Among Us itself was extremely popular at the time[42] and the video's popularity likely has nothing to do with 15.ai. Likewise, by February 2021, The RED Bread Bank video mentioned had 150k Views [43] from a channel with over 100k subscribers. The 15.ai "The Heavy is Dead" [44] has at this moment 235k views, the original "Heavy is Dead" has over 15,000,000 [45], so it is likely that traffic simply got driven to the 15.ai version from the large amount of people who saw the original. My point is, there are no sources provided which can be used to verify the significance of 15.ai, and until some can be found, I don't think it should leave draftspace.
    Happily agree to disagree. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to quickly chime in on the claim None of the sources in the entirety of the background section of 15.ai presently, say this about 15.ai, the Inverse [46] and Analytics India Magazine [47] that are used in the article do support the claim that In the history of deep learning speech synthesis, this is the the website that offered "voice cloning for the masses". The website is the first example of a website using this technology that reached such popularity.. The subject of those articles aren't 15.ai (rather, voice cloning as a whole), but they both agree that 15.ai came first in achieving mass popularity in the field. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to keep this brief. Neither of those sources are cited in the specific Background section I was referring to, they're used in the lead and "Reception and Legacy". Of those two sources, though, Analytics India Magazine says of 15.ai While AI voice memes have been around in some form since ‘15.ai’ launched in 2020, and Inverse says AI voice tools used to create "audio deepfakes" have existed for years in one form or another, with 15.ai being a notable example. Neither of those sentences from these two sources verifies that claim without WP:OR, neither of them says that it's the first website that reached popularity, they just say they've been around since 2020 with 15.ai's launch and that audio deepfakes have existed for years and that 15.ai is a notable example. At best with those two sources we could, for example, write something like Launched in 2020, 15.ai was an early pioneer of audio deepfakes because that's what the sources can verify without any OR. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be fixed editorially, it doesn't require deleting the article: That content now reads: 15.ai was an early pioneer of audio deepfakes, leading to the emergence of AI speech synthesis-based memes. Its influence has been noted in the years after it became defunct, and since then, several commercial alternatives emerged, such as ElevenLabs and Speechify. An additional source is cited, with tighter text-source integrity. —Alalch E. 03:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that Eurogamer and Strevivor are just trivial mentions. An article doesn't have to feature 15.ai as the subject; it just has to address it directly and in detail. While NME did not (hence NME is indeed just trivial mentions), Eurogamer and Strevivor both dedicate over a paragraph to detail 15.ai itself, therefore they count, and the article has Sustained coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By all reasons Notability exists (to make sure there's enough verifiable information for a non-stub), I don't see why ExpertSPSs would not count towards notability, and I cannot find any Policy/Guideline/Essay that explains why. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement they don't confer notability is based on the discussion about Andrew Ng's The Batch at the RSN where it was said Treat as a SPS, which means that it doesn't count towards notability [48] and also Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_sources_for_notability which states Self-published sources are seldom useful for demonstrating the notability of any subject. Cheers! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting and extremely questionable section. I doubt whether it's supported by consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contend that WP:GNG stipulates "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, most WP:SPS, including EXPERTSPS, lack editorial oversight. I am also unsure as to whether the author of the Towards Data Science article qualifies as an ExpertSPS which requires it be an established subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has been published. Chandraseta has exactly one publication per Google Scholar, cited 4 times, which has nothing to do with voice cloning/audiodeepfakes, and is a 5 page conference paper about scraping articles from the Indonesian Wikipedia[49]. I'm not sure a single conference paper is enough to qualify them as an established subject-matter expert in all things AI, which means per WP:MEDIUM the Towards Data Science might not be usable. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that's what it means. GNG immediately follows that by ", per the reliable source guideline." I suspect "editorial integrity" to be just another word for "ethos". Notability's purpose is to ensure Wikipedia's articles have enough verifiable information to not be stubs among satisfying other content policies. ExpertSPS articles do not fall short of that, thus they should count towards notability, no matter what the letter of the law says. (The encyclopedic value part of inclusion criteria is already being debated above.)
    I didn't realize TDS was under contention. Gregarious has found that it has has had widely-cited articles, and the publication lists two editors. As for Chandraseta, an AI summarization model is the centerpiece of the paper about "scraping articles". He has a lot of AI stuff on his GitHub profile, including a model to recognize faces and detect their emotions. (He also has another paper analyzing the usage of graphs in video games, but I suspect it to be a dissertation.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I still believe this website meets WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - per Brocade River Poems. I remain unconvinced about the sourcing. The sourcing is the same as was discussed in the AfD that closed last week as delete, and for which the deletion was endorsed at DRV. I concur with the above source assessment, and per Oaktree b. However I do believe there is a distinct possibility that notability for this could be established. The Business News Ledger article, whilst clearly an unreliable source, was the kind of article one might expect will emerge in a reliable source, and if and when that happens, we will have something permanently notable to say about this site. The deleted draft was hurried back into mainspace through a couple of mistaken circumstances, whereas if this had been incubated longer, I expect a return to mainspace down the line would be perfectly okay. Draft space will allow this to develop unhindered by all this process, and I would be happy to assist in the drafting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi everyone! After another night of research, I found even more sources contributing significant coverage to 15.ai. As discussed in my talk page, finding sources for 15.ai is very very difficult because search engines don't search for punctuation, so search results for "15.ai" get inundated by "top 15 AI" slop articles that I had to sift through. Some of these sources I had to go all the way to page 37 of Google search results. Here they are.
  • [NEW] Yahoo! News Taiwan [50]. Reliable as listed in WP:RSPSS. WP:RSPSS cautions Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top., but the article is evidently not syndicated, as a quick translation of the article shows; there is no original source name or logo at the top, and the author is a legitimate author of Yahoo! Games.
  • [NEW] Arkade [51]. One of the largest and most reputable gaming news outlets in Brazil with almost 200K followers on social media. It is a commonly used source on Portguese Wikipedia [52] and has been used for Brazilian subjects on English Wikipedia.
  • [NEW] Anime Superhero [53]. An animation/video games/pop culture news outlet with a fairly popular forum attached to it. Significant coverage, though reliability is uncertain.
  • [NEW] EquestriaCN [54]. A newsletter for Chinese My Little Pony news. Notably, this coverage is in October 2021, which is separate from the other significant coverage of the website listed so far. Significant coverage includes detailed history of the site, its re-emergence, a description of the technology behind 15.ai (including FlowGAN denoising, which is something that previous sources hadn't mentioned, and DeepMoji and ARPAbet strings), and its terms of service.
I was a little hesitant to post this as a standalone comment as it could be considered WP:BLUDGEONING which I want to avoid, so if it would be better edited as part of the original comment, I can do that instead. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 14:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, keep it here, or the history and context of other replies will get mixed up. Simply adding sources won’t be considered bludgeoning. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it! I found even more sources so I'll edit this comment as I keep finding more. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo News: 20 January 2021
  • Arkdale: 19 January 2021
  • Anime Superhero: 18 January 2021
Three more sources that were part of the 5 day flurry of news articles about a new site. See the comments above from BRP, and per WP:NRV. Short term interest - a new site. Tells you what it does. These add nothing, I am afraid.
  • EquestriaCN: discussed above. It is not reliable for this, and in any case it is also just a news report that the site had an update.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the analysis, but I feel like we're getting too hung up on when these articles came out instead of what they actually say. Yes, there was a burst of coverage in January 2021—but that's because something genuinely groundbreaking happened! The way United Daily News, Den Fami Nico Gamer, and AUTOMATON covered this wasn't your typical "here's a cool new website" reporting. We're talking 400–800 words each diving into the technical details, explaining the innovations in how it handled voice synthesis, breaking down the DeepMoji implementation, explaining how ARPAbet works, what other approaches have been tried before 15.ai, etc. That's serious coverage that demonstrates real significance. AND multiple machine learning professors and specialists came out talking about 15.ai and its technology. It wasn't just some "flash in the pan", it was an application of voice cloning that despite most people using it to make silly memes and videos on the Internet, serious machine learning professors like Andrew Ng and Yongqiang Li took it very seriously.
Also let's not just ignore the fact that 15.ai kept coming up in 2022 with the Voiceverse situation and wasn't just dismissed as just a "cool app". When Eurogamer and other major outlets are covering another company trying to misappropriate your tech, to me, that's a pretty clear sign you've made something significant! And just the fact that a multi-million dollar partnership was still trying to steal the work from a free service that was made by a single person, that's a pretty commendable accomplishment.
Major publications across multiple countries (USA, Canada, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Mexico, Spain, Brazil, and those are just the sources that I've found, I'm sure I'm still missing a lot of them but I've pulled near-all nighters three times now working on sourcing this article) didn't dedicate that kind of coverage for nothing. The timing of the coverage matters way less than what that coverage actually says (I did a whole analysis of the contents of the articles in the 2nd AfD if anyone is interested in that), and I think the sheer amount of coverage does dictate that 15.ai was a notable innovation that changed how people approached voice synthesis in the early stages of AI development.
(Also, I have to point out that EquestriaCN isn't the same as Equestria Daily.) GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all-nighters are bad for your health and sanity y'know
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all-nighters are bad for your health and sanity y'know I know, but when the old article got deleted, I was committed to doing the subject justice. If no one was able to find sources for 15.ai, I told myself I would do it myself, and I want to show the good people of Wikipedia that I'm serious about this. I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you. I've been trying to explain my thought process better but I find it much easier to write it in the form of an article than in a discussion, but I'm trying my best! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to be brief here to weigh in on the new sources without retreading Sirfurboy's post:
  • Anime Super Hero used to be known as ToonZone.net, which has been brought to RSN numerous times and mostly found unreliable [55][56] and again as Animesuperhero[57]
  • EquestriaCN identifies itself as a fansite, and to my understanding fansites are considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia with very few exceptions where they qualify as SPS.
I also want to add that the timing of the coverage does matter, per WP:NSUSTAINED. Also please take care of yourself, WP:NODEADLINE. I know it's hard when your brain is fixated on something, but don't hurt yourself via lack of sleep over Wikipedia. This is part of why I feel it would be better to return the article to the draft state, that way you can take your time on improving it without stressing yourself over AfD. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the extensive UseByOthers examples in the first link, I searched the archives. WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 93#Toonzone.net again features the opposite assessment (brought forth by a prominent ITN participant, but also very old). I would agree that it's sort of 50/50 whether the site is reliable, so maybe we should just assume it isn't. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why you think it’s okay to bold any text other than your vote. What is this silliness with “[NEW]”? Is this a sales pitch? Are you selling me a new product? Totally pompous behavior that does nothing except make it harder for a closing admin to understand what’s going on. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, simply bolding "[NEW]" would surely confuse the closers. While I also don't really see the point, it absolutely does not warrant language like "pompous" and is perfectly fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I get that you want to make a joke out of this, but you’re missing the point. The refbombing, the bolding of random text, and the paragraphs upon paragraphs of buzzworded grandstanding makes it harder for people to participate. I personally found it extremely frustrating to parse through the sources provided here, only to realize that they do almost nothing to establish notability. My point is that this behavior is part and parcel of an effort to make it artifically difficult for people to meaningfully participate in this AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though my first sentence was sarcasm, I was not joking, and I'm sure you did not mean to assume bad faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD has only been open for 3 days and already has 57,768 bytes of comments. PLEASE, make your argument and do not respond to every argument you disagree with. Do not BLUDGEON this discussion like the past AFD. This is already a mess for a future closer to parse through. Keep your comments concise and brief. And, even better if you have already had your say and do not need to say any more. Let's hear from new voices. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a terrible idea to proclaim that a subject is notable, and then work backwards to find as many sources as we can to support that argument. I've seen this happen far too often, and it appears to be happening in this AfD. Many of the sources brought forth in this AfD are written by authors with questionable reliability or are self-published. For example, one of the sources mentioned in this AfD is a self-published Medium article, and the Taiwan Daily News article is written by someone named "KYLAT" whose profile picture is a picture of Jack Nicholson. Refbombing appears to have convinced people who have merely asserted that the sources are sufficient, but I remain unconvinced. Two good sources are much better than twenty bad ones. If this is what we've found after pulling all-nighters, I feel comfortable saying that there is insufficient sourcing to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be much more productive if we directly discussed the sources instead of speculating about editors' approaches.
I just responded about TowardsDataScience here.
It looks like United Daily News allows pseudonymous submissions. They're big and trusted enough that I'm sure they review their articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to see some sourcing describing United Daily News's revision process before accepting it as reliable. The same thing goes for the Medium article. I appreciate your response, but my vote remains unchanged. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Having read through the DRV in its entirety, is this AfD discussion still only open to extended-confirmed users? Madeleine (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be up to the closer to decide that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Weak keep. I find Aaron Liu and GregarioiusMadness's assessment more compelling than HyperAccelerated. A look through the sources evinces that the vast majority of the authors are real with storied edit histories. As funny as it is, I do not buy the Jack-Nicholson-from-The-Shining-avatar-therefore-writings-are-moot argument, particularly when you factor in the fact that using pseudonyms and avatars is somewhat common practice in Asian news media, unlike Western media. It would be wise to invoke WP:NOENG; the Japanese and Taiwanese sources alone appear strong enough to advocate for GNG. Having tried to do a search for 15.ai myself a few minutes ago, I can confirm that it is exceptionally difficult to filter out the useless "Top 15 AI" articles. But the sourcing itself, as is, appears to be sufficient. Madeleine (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voting. Would you mind pointing me to the two or three sources mentioned above that you feel do the most to establish notability? HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, simply writing "voting" instead of "!voting" would surely confuse anyone reading this. Stop cluttering this page with your random trivia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the rise of AI and increasing technological advancements this article would be beneficial to keep. Rager7 (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding management software

edit
Wedding management software (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. Tagged for notability issues for years. Imcdc Contact 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Cloud

edit
AfDs for this article:
Schengen Cloud (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Edward Snowden#Europe. There are some sources that speak about this. For instance The Politics of data Transfer (2017) and Sustainability in a Digital World (2014). However what these describe is the idea, and that firmly wedded to the Snowden revelations that led to the consideration and politics of this. That second source states To cope with this challenge, Germany and France were considering a so-called "Schengen Cloud" system... That is, the source verifies that this is not something that exists, and certainly not by that name. It was a political idea occasioned by surveillance of European's private information by the U.S. The source explains the diplomatic hurdles that would exist and points out that it would not altogether work. It was a political idea that never went beyond the talking stage. But the talk is still information. Not about an actual Schengen Cloud - that does not exist and we should not have a page on it. But we should mention it, and the Snowden page appears to be the most appropriate article to cover this as it has a reactions section, and specifically a European reactions section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Edward Snowden article, as suggested above. I couldn't find enough sourcing to establish this subject as independently notable, but sources indicate that discussions surrounding the concept of a "Schengen cloud" arose as a result of Snowden's whistleblowing. It is my judgement that this makes the Snowden article a valid merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator

edit
Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator (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 found one short paragraph in a book, but otherwise I couldn't find anything that could be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-established technical standard from one of the largest computer networks of the 1980s and 1990s. Further evidence of notability will likely be found in contemporaneous digital sources (nowadays hard to find) than in books. The FidoNews archive (not indexed by Google and other search engines due to its antiquated compression format) and terminal/BBS software manuals would be good places to start. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Psychonaut (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    Horrible reasoning. Vaguely gesturing to an archive of 4000 zip files and saying "it's probably in here" is not a valid argument. If this is such a well-known standard, you should have no issue finding sources that provide in-depth coverage to back up what you're saying. Are you seriously asking me to download thousands of zip files written by a stranger on the Internet onto my own computer? HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm saying that the topic is likely notable and have provided pointers to anyone who has both the time and interest to help find sources that further support this notability. I have the interest but unfortunately no time at the moment, particularly given that any reliable sources that do exist probably aren't readily available on the Web. (Case in point: the documents you have balked at examining were not written "on the Internet"; they simply happen to be archived there.) If you do want to help, you might provide details of the book you found. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not care whether they were initially published in a print format. I would like to see specific quotations from source material that show significant coverage. If you are not going to do that, I have nothing to discuss with you. No WP: SIGCOV, no article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It belatedly occurs to me that the two sources already cited in the article probably already meet WP:GNG in that they are reliable (both having been adopted as FidoNet standards), have significant coverage of the topic (one of which describes in detail the protocol and an independent implementation of it, and the other of which describes an extension to the original protocol), and are independent of the subject (since they were written by someone who was uninvolved in the design or initial implementation of the protocol, other than having suggested a name for it). Having freed up some time this evening, I found a few further sources with more than trivial mentions of AVATAR:
    • PC Interrupts: A Programmer's Reference Guide to BIOS, DOS, and Third-party Calls by Ralf Brown and Jim Kyle (Addison-Wesley, 1993) has a paragraph about the serial dispatcher of the AVATAR driver in Chapter 7 and several pages' worth of API documentation for the AVATAR driver in Chapter 36.
    • "ANSI-TERM 4", an article about the eponymous terminal software by its author Richard VanHouten, appears in the September 1992 issue of Computer News 80 (Vol. 5, № 9), and includes a short paragraph discussing AVATAR and which terminals support it. (Similar information is recapitulated elsewhere in the issue in an independent review of ANSI-TERM 4 by Gary W. Shanafelt, though this one may be too brief to count.)
    • The Opus Technical Reference Manual by Trev Roydhouse (2nd edition, 1991) has a comprehensive description of all AVATAR commands in §4.4.2. (This source may or may not be fully independent; although Opus and AVATAR were designed by Wynn Wagner III, the manual was not written by him.)
    —Psychonaut (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, absolutely not. In one of the sources, the author describes making a phone call to the developer of AVATAR. This would not realistically happen unless the two were already in close contact with one another. (Note: there's two sources on the article currently, both written by George Stanislav.)
    You also propose that these sources are independent of the subject "they were written by someone who was uninvolved in the design or initial implementation of the protocol, other than having suggested a name for it". This, of course, is unreasonable. Under this interpretation of independence, it would okay for my friend to write a Wikipedia article about my high school programming assignment because they never looked at the code before the project was completed.
    You need to provide specific quotations from the other sources not in the article. Technical documentation usually does not qualify as significant coverage, because most documentation is authored by someone participating in the development process. At this point, you have done nothing to show that any source provides significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is no such rule here about technical documentation, no one is under any obligation to quote third-party sources (which, as I've indicated, total many pages of material on the topic), and with the probable exception of Roydhouse, the authors we are discussing (Stanislav, Brown, Kyle, VanHouten, and Shanafelt) had no prior relationship with AVATAR's creator and were all documenting something that they had, at their time of writing, no involvement in developing. We do not discount sources simply because the author may have telephoned someone connected with the subject in order to gather information, a practice that is routine in journalism and not uncommon in scientific and technical writing. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. Stanislav is not an independent source. They are a software developer that works in close collaboration with the author of AVATAR, Wynn Wagner. The sources are technical documents about the software:

    When I started working on my TinyTerm communications program, I had the idea that if Opus-CBCS could send the "oANSI" codes directly over the phone lines, it would speed up the communications considerably. A typical ANSI sequence contains 4 times as many bytes as the codes developed by Wynn Wagner. A phone call to Wynn resulted in two things: TinyTerm can interpret the "oANSI" codes and translate them to ANSI, then send them to stdout where they are converted to colors by ANSI.SYS [and] Opus-CBCS, starting with gamma version 1.10.iii, will send the codes without converting them to ANSI sequences. (It will still send ANSI codes to users without the proper terminal software.)

    Even if you know absolutely nothing about software development, you obviously know that this is not written for the New York Times. These are two software developers working in close collaboration to decide how a piece of software should be implemented. Their relationship is not journalistic. The fact that Stanislav came up with the name of AVATAR further establishes that their relationship was not journalistic.
    I also found this page written by Wynn Wagner that states "The last version of Opus that I wrote was v1.03. ... George Stanislav took over Opus development when I finally turned off my PC. He completed several utilities." It's not just about a single phone call: it's about a standing collaboration. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and if you don't want to give us quotations from those other sources, the article will be deleted. The onus is on you to show significant coverage, and you haven't done that. If you don't want to complete your argument, I'm not going to stop you. You told users to download thousands of zip files onto their computer for fun, and you wrongly claimed that George Stanislav, a close collaborator of the author of AVATAR, was an independent journalist. Nobody here should trust what you're saying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can find a few articles in scholar that mention it, and amazingly the tech description (and/or code) can be found online, mostly at thebbs.org. As I recall there were BBS-specific magazines and a fair amount of BBS discussion in things like PC Magazine. But content from that era will be very hard to find. I'd be happy to !vote keep if something can be found. Lamona (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The PC Interrupts book has nearly a full page with technical specs and a small amount of explanation. It doesn't seem enough to create a stand-alone article, and doesn't cover some of the unreferenced statements in the article. I'm wondering if we can find a merge target, something like Bulletin board system or ANSI_escape_codes or Advanced Video Coding (or anything else appropriate). To User:HyperAccelerated: having a phone call or even working with someone does not mean that the source cannot be independent. Journalists interact with the subjects of their writings, sometimes intensely, and can still write independent stories. Knowing someone does not erase independence. Also, please be civil; at no time did User:Psychonaut tell anyone "to download thousands of zip files onto their computer for fun." WP:AGF, right? Lamona (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with any of those merge targets. I have also yet to see convincing evidence that Stanislav is a journalist. The literature I have found suggests that they are a close collaborator of the author of AVATAR. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. There is some support for a Merge but it would help if a single Merge target article was identified and agreed upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — soft — I don't outright disagree with Psychonaut's contentions. However, I do find HyperAccelerated's arguments more compelling. Additionally, I agree that Stanislav might not qualify as an independent source, but I would want to see other arguments regarding him before I made-up my mind. Assuming Stanislav is indeed independent, for now, I do not see how two technical documents from 1989 equates to "extensive coverage." Furthermore, is FTSC.org a RS? It matters not if Stanlisav is or is not; if FTSC.org isn't, we shouldn't be utilizing it. If there are more sources — which, in all fairness, there does appear to be — they should be properly (and quickly) added. Despite potentially being on the chopping block, this article has not been edited since AfD nomination, despite no less than two re-lists. However, as-written, it's a delete, for me. I would support a merge to ANSI escape codes, given how AVATAR is described as "Its basic level was designed explicitly as a compression of the much longer ANSI escape codes." The article, as-is, makes several entirely unsourced assertions. (As an aside, I would also contend that this article may be skirting the bounds of being too technical, though this is not necessarily grounds for deletion)MWFwiki (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources having been provided so far. There are only two sources cited, both of which are technical documents written from a personal perspective rather than an independent perspective: "I took over the coding of the part of Opus handling the video codes. I realized the codes were offering us much more power than just translating them to ANSI escape sequences. I proposed to call the codes AVATAR, the Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator." [58] "Both Joaquim and Jason have assured me they would put the new commands in their programs, thus nothing will be broken. With that assurance in mind, I feel confident no chaos will result from adding these new commands." [59] FTSC.org has some documents labeled "Fidonet Technical Standards", but the two cited here are not among that group; see http://ftsc.org/docs/ where they are assigned to the "Fidonet Reference Library" section instead. Maybe there are independent sources (particularly secondary sources; see WP:SCHOLARSHIP) about this protocol, but it's the responsibility of the article's supporters to find them and cite them in the article. If User:Psychonaut or someone else wants additional time to look for sources, the article can be userfied instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. PC Interrupts: A Programmer's Reference Guide to BIOS, DOS, and Third-party Calls by Brown & Kyle is not available online (that I can find), so I can't assess it. I'm well aware per WP:SOURCEACCESS that online availability or the lack thereof does not affect the quality of a source; I'm just saying that I can't assess it.
  2. I found the issue of Computer News 80 you mentioned at the Internet Archive. The coverage of AVATAR there is insignificant. Page 9 says that ANSI-Term 4 uses the hi-res graphics screen to do such things as "Control the screen using AVATAR control sequences. AVATAR (Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator) is a set of control codes designed to be faster than ANSI codes are, and is in use by some BBS's. To the best of my knowledge, ANSI-Term 4 is the ONLY TRS-80 terminal program to support AVATAR." Page 20 says regarding ANSI-Term 4, "In addition to supporting the major ANSI codes (no, you can't get a color display with it!) it also supports the similar AVATAR standard." Those are the only mentions of AVATAR in the issue.
  3. I'm just going to provide a link to the Internet Archive version of The Opus Technical Reference Manual because I don't understand it well enough to comment on it.
I'm not being Randy from Boise here, despite my lack of expertise in this topic; I can see that most of the content of this article is uncited. Nor, as far as I can tell, could Computer News 80 or The Opus Technical Reference Manual be used to source most of the current content. Basically, I'm looking for citations in the article itself, not a list in the AfD discussion of sources that might possibly be used which may or may not have anything to do with the current content of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing&oldid=1265099795"