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.

Purge page cache

watch

Genie (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect). IntGrah (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntGrah (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join Java (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: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoreHW (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wP:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 11 references, 8 are their own websites, and 2 are brief database type listings. That leaves only 1 possible GNG reference (#5 per 7/7/24 numbers) and it's behind a paywall. (A paywall does not preclude it from consideration, it just means that I was unable to review but a best it would mean only one) Wording follows this pattern, sounds like only self-description.

North8000 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article appears to be promotional and multiple sources go to the same page. Ternera (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOPROMO and it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong monad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is >90% mathematical notation and diagrams, and minimal general-interest content. Looks like an excerpt from a research paper. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. If content is useful for encyclopedia, it might be summarized and moved to Monad (category theory). beefyt (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; a definition pulled from a research-paper with insufficient usage by others. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firmex (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. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MagicTracer (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)

This piece of paid software does not meet the WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NSOFT either, although that is just an essay. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search has led me to finding only download links, so subject fails WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lava (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second AfD nomination (previous: no consensus); no secondary coverage in reliable sources IntGrah (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntGrah (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've been babysitting this article for three years. Unfortunately, it hasn't improved in that time. I agree that the topic is not notable and that lacks sources other than the language author's website. More concerning, the principal contributor to this article appears to be the language author himself. The previous AfD failed due to lack of consensus. The only editor defending it was—you guessed it—the author of the language and this article. His reasoning was that if this article is deleted from Wikipedia, it will drastically reduce the traffic to his website. Sorry folks but that's not a reason to keep an article.
  Furthermore, the lede of the article states that it's an experimental programming language, meaning that it has limited utility to anyone other than the author and maybe some compiler or language enthusiasts. Something I create in my garage isn't notable until people start noting it, and this should be no different. — voidxor 00:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sourcing improvements that would establish the subject's notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Geeks Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

Girl Geeks Scotland (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Girl Geek Scotland (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. 3 of the 4 sources are dead. The remaining source [1] is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Computing, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No independent sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found and added archived versions of the broken links. There are four good references, including two from mainstream newspapers. The article should be moved to Girl Geek Scotland, the organization's correct name.
• Keep — clearly, the article needs a rewrite and the inclusion of additional references. However, as per WP:CONTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, the current state of the article has no bearing on its notability. Reliable and independent sources do exist: I am able to find a decent number of them. I see coverage in The Scotsman, Holyrood, BBC, City A.M., The Independent, and others. I think there is enough to establish notability. GhostOfNoMeme 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep found this on The Guardian[2], combined with the sources the wikipedians afore spoke about, should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and, subsequently, WP:ORGCRIT. However, when saying “I found an article on BBC”, please, add a link as well. That would help discussion to move quicker, as it would be easier to verify the arguments. Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above Guardian RS article source stating this is a nonprofit organisation, then basic GNG applies per WP:NONPROFIT, and the subject very much appears to meet that notability level. ResonantDis_tortion 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown (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)

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moppi Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], only a single mention. One can find mentions elsewhere, like in this Tivi (magazine) [fi] article. According to a licentiate thesis, "Kurki (2002, p.57–62) used Moppi Productions as a case example when discussing developing visual styles", but I wasn't able to access the work. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Finland. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kurki (2002) is available here (in Finnish). Adam Sampson (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Computer Science and Control (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)

Nothing in this article suggests it passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Most references seem to be to the entity itself. My BEFORE doesn't help much, although sources might exist in Hungarian. The article has a big list of external links, in Hungarian, for anyone who cares to review them (they don't have English titles or publisher information or such). Hungarian wiki article seems to have more content but even fewer references than we do :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Hungary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article seems promotional, many of the sources link back to the institute's own website, and I'm unable to find articles online to be used as additional sources. Ternera (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarden (demoparty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.no article, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. just write what is possible based off those sources and maybe their website Mrfoogles (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid (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)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

• Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
• Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
• Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [3][4] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.

Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.

The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.

  The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems (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)

The whole article currently relies on primary sources. Also, I am not convinced that a research laboratory of a university and/or a research institute needs a separate article, since there are no major achievements for this. All relevant information can be easily migrated to MTA SZTAKI; therefore, the article can be either completely deleted or, more suitably, merged with MTA SZTAKI. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Institute for Computer Science and Control, which also has dubious notability as written. This is just a spammy catalogue entry with no indications of WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Institute for Computer Science and Control is also nominated at an AFD discussion and MTA SZTAKI is a redirect to that article, too. Is there another possible target article that isn't up for deletion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: S
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]