Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject D…

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing
Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at 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

Chris Minnick

Chris Minnick (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 NAUTHOR and GNG by my BEFORE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Greg Panos

Greg Panos (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)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Entire article contains no citations for information and reads rather like a resume or article written by the subject himself. None of the sources address the information included within the article and do not appear to be WP:RS either. General reference 1 is ImDB, 2 hardly could even be described as a biography and is written by the subject's company, 3 is not independent of the subject, 4 does not mention the subject in the actual article, and 5 is unavailable and from its title, hardly seems like it would contain WP:SIGCOV. A quick google search doesn't appear to yield any promising sources. Neither do searches of google books and google news. Bungle491 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

delete I didn't see anything else in my search. The external links that are there wouldn't pass for WP:RS imo. Yojo98 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Quarantine (antivirus program)

Quarantine (antivirus program) (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)

Couldn't find any sources for this product apart from Wikipedia mirrors, and most results seem to be for the process of quarantining in antivirus software rather than this specific product. It seems it's lacked any sources since it was created in 2005. It does mention an award from "LAN Magazine" but I couldn't find anything (although in fairness, it does say it was in 1990, so it's possible there's a copy floating around somewhere that I haven't found). IAmNetx (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

SEEQC

SEEQC (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)

SEEQC

This article on this quantum computing company has been created in both article space and draft space. A review of the sources shows that some of them are press releases, some of them are interviews with the CEO of the company, and some of them are about the technology. I did not read reference 2, which is paywalled, but am inferring that it is about the technology. If someone can read it and verify that it is about the company, it will be 1 source that meets all of the criteria for corporate notability. As it is, some of the sources are not independent, and some of them are passing mentions.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary Meets NCORP
1 https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/14/with-30-million-in-new-funding-seeqc-thinks-chips-are-key-to-building-useful-quantum-computing/ An interview with the CEO No Yes Yes No No
2 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2516804-could-a-niche-80s-technology-be-the-key-to-better-quantum-computers/ Paywalled article. Appears to be about the technology rather than the company. Yes Probably not Yes Yes Probably not.
3 https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/news-insights/stories/quantum-leap An alumni profile of the CEO by Harvard Business School No Yes Yes No No
4 https://www.businessinsider.com/major-quantum-computing-announcements-made-during-nvidias-gtc-conference-2025-3 About NVIDIA, not about the subject company Yes No Yes Yes No
5 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-has-a-roadmap-to-a-fault-tolerant-quantum-computer-by-2029-91645d73 About IBM, not about the subject company Yes No Yes Yes No
6 https://washingtonexec.com/2025/09/booz-allen-seeqc-expand-partnership-to-advance-quantum-computing/ A press release by Booz-Allen No. A press release Marginal Yes Yes No
7 https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/uk-national-quantum-computing-centre-gets-novel-cross-qubit-system-from-seeqc/ A press release by a partner UK agency No. A press release Marginal Yes Yes No
8 https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/news-insights/stories/quantum-leap Same as 3 No Yes Yes No No
9 https://www.sbir.gov/portfolio/184513 Abstract of a Small Business Innovative Research award to the company and its predecessor Yes Yes Yes No No
10 https://nypost.com/2025/12/29/business/quantum-computers-the-size-of-your-fingernail-are-being-built-in-westchester-ny/ A long interview with the CEO No. An interview. Yes Yes N/A No
11 https://nypost.com/2025/12/29/business/quantum-computers-the-size-of-your-fingernail-are-being-built-in-westchester-ny/ Same long interview as 10 No. An interview. Yes Yes N/A No
12 https://www.wsj.com/articles/merck-venture-arm-invests-in-quantum-computing-startup-seeqc-11586454285 About Merck research, including a mention of SEEQC Yes No. Passing mention. Yes Yes No
13 https://www.engineering.com/seeqc-partners-with-itri-to-make-sfq-control-chips/ A press release No Yes Yes Yes No
14 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-026-01607-2 A long abstract about quantum computing Yes No. Passing mention. Yes Yes No
15 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-026-01607-2 Same long abstract as 14 Yes No. Passing mention. Yes Yes No
16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-intelligence/ai-tech-brief/2026/06/23/ai-tech-brief-americas-quantum-industrial-policy/ Detailed coverage of quantum computing, with interview with CEO Yes Not about the company, only about the subject. Yes Yes No

There is already a draft, so deletion will leave the draft, which can be resubmitted via AFC with additional sources when additional sources are found. In the meantime, the Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide significant coverage.

The paywalled article, reference 2, in New Scientist was written by science writer Karmela Padavic-Callaghan, who earned a PhD in theoretical condensed matter physics and atomic, molecular and optical physics from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Their research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including Physical Review Letters and New Journal of Physics.
Reference 2 is a feature about the company that meets NCORP standards.
Number 4 was supporting evidence for the NVIDIA citation in Business Insider.
The Nature Electronics paper is an entire peer-reviewed, scientific paper validating the company's research. The whole thing is paywalled, but this deserves a closer look. It is about the company (their research specifically) and does meet NCORP standards.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-026-01576-6 Sqwunty (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Information security awareness

Information security awareness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Security awareness because we have too many closely-overlapping articles on this topic, and that's the most general article name. This particular article is essay-like and outdated, but some of the material could be salvaged into the main article. Other articles in this cluster: Internet security awareness, Internet Security Awareness Training and National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated penetration testing

Automated penetration testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Penetration test because automated and semi-automated approaches are a routine part of penetration testing. These approaches make more sense to discuss in context with the practice as a whole.

Also, this article is an orphan (no other articles link to it), and it has substantial signs of being written with an LLM (see WP:AISIGNS), such as the whole paragraph with "To avoid implying consensus, this article describes". Better to scrap this article and merge anything useful and verified into the main article, instead of trying to rewrite it. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

15 (software engineer)

15 (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Keep. Passes WP:BASIC; independent notability is met as the subject is a primary focus of both the articles 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, both of which have plenty of sources that are not currently used in the nominated article. The article is incomplete, but the problems are entirely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. –GM 16:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal is clearly a subtopic of 15.ai, I'm not convinced it needs to be a standalone article (at the very least it needs a hatchet taken to it to pare it down from 80,000 bytes). This is not is convincing case for independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    What?! That topic is clearly not a subtopic of 15.ai. It easily passes WP:GNG, has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time, has multiple sections and paragraphs that don't involve 15.ai at all, and has an entire Legacy section filled with WP:RS talking about how important it was in the general landscape of video games and NFTs. Why in the world would that article be a subtopic of 15.ai as opposed to, say, a subtopic of Troy Baker or a subtopic of NFT controversies? The article itself is GA quality, so I don't know where you're getting this notion at all that the article needs to be rewritten. Proposing that the nominated article and the whole Voiceverse article be merged into 15.ai is seriously baffling and raises the question of whether you actually read all of the article's sources in full (I did). –GM 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Redirect to 15.ai cause there really isnt much to the article that isnt already discussed at 15.ai, tbh the pseudonymous nature of the individual is going to make quality blp sources extremely difficult and a lot of the sources used i think currently at least border on WP:BLPGOSSIP. i do want to also note an article about this individual was already blanked and redirected once before and i think the reasoning why is still a solid argument for the redirect today [1] Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet Ibnqirtaiba is a confirmed sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems, see investigation. reply
  • Redirect to 15.ai, the subject does not have independent notability as the majority of the sources are about the website and not the individual themselves. MidnightMayhem (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep due to WP:CREATIVE #3, subject created 15.ai which has been primary subject of multiple international independent periodical articles [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and more. I don't see why independent notability is important that it mandates a redirect, there does not seem to be official policy that require this. We have articles Speechify and Cliff Weitzman, who is notable for nothing outside of Speechify. Arguably Weitzman's article should be a redirect more than 15's because 15.ai's reach was much wider than Speechify. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bronymike2010 see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NBLP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro That's where WP:CREATIVE comes from on the same page, an additional criteria along with the regular notability criteria. Independent notability is moot because subject qualifies CREATIVE #3, warranting an article. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bronymike2010, and must also pass WP:GNG.
As GM mentions below part of the claim is WP:BLP1E Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: No, I'm saying that I disagree with the WP:BLP1E argument. The subject does pass WP:GNG. It's just a matter of improving the article, which I unfortunately cannot because I am blocked due to edit warring. Once the block is over, though, I'll make sure to improve it substantially. –GM 08:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Fully understood. I was pointing out to Bronymike2010, the rationale and policy/guidelines being cited. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: No problem. I only wanted to clarify because I saw that you were repeating the same argument above, hoping you'd reconsider. –GM 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
What sources are you looking at that illustrate that this is not a case of BLP1E? Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: Here's a sample of multiple WP:RS showing coverage occurring at different periods for different reasons:
  • Feng, Bai (March 15, 2020). "模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" [Struggling with Models with Over 100 Million Parameters? See How an MIT Student Achieved High‑Quality Text‑to‑Speech with Minimal Data!]. QQ News (in Chinese). XinZhiYuan. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025. (pre-2021 15.ai)
  • Chandraseta, Rionaldi (January 21, 2021). "Generate Your Favourite Characters' Voice Lines using Machine Learning". Towards Data Science. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved December 18, 2024. (during operation in 2021)
  • Wright, Steve (January 17, 2022). "Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission". Stevivor. Archived from the original on January 17, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2025. (Voiceverse scandal)
  • Abisola, Shojobi (January 3, 2025). "The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI". Independent. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 27, 2025. (post-15.ai)
  • Irpan, Alex (July 21, 2025). "Brony Musicians Seize The Means of Production: My Eyewitness Account to BABSCon 2025". Alex Irpan. Archived from the original on July 30, 2025. Retrieved October 1, 2025. (fandom impact and involvement; the author is a Senior Research Scientist at Google Deepmind with over 26,000 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 31(!), so WP:EXPERTSPS applies)
–GM 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:EXPERTSPS explicitly does not apply to BLPs: Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechify and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Weitzman have been nominated for deletion. Madeleine (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Neutral/Week merge Merge/Redirect per nom and Skyshifter. I am not seeing how this subject would warrant it's own page. That being said, I would prefer a merger over a redirect, as there does appear to be some useful and encyclopedic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Issac I Navarro: The above arguments are essentially invoking WP:BLP1E, in that the claim is that the subject is only notable for having created 15.ai. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here. The subject is covered in connection with both having created and operated 15.ai and separately for a substantial and well-documented role in the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal that is notable enough to have its own article. BLP1E directly states Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. which isn't true here. –GM 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    After reading the sources that GM has pointed out (above), I have striked my redirect. I have a very week stance on a merger due to the bio may pass WP:GNG. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Issac I Navarro: I don't think a merge is appropriate here, as it would then be grounds for WP:SPLITTING again as the 15.ai article should be focused on the website. The Background section is already long as it is and largely focuses on the technology behind what made the website unique. It wouldn't make sense to merge only to include additional information about its creator irrelevant to the website when we could easily fix it by having a separate article per WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPINOFF for this: the main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article. –GM 08:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Issac I Navarro: Respectfully disagree that a merge is preferable to a redirect. Note the above blocked confirmed sockpuppet User:Ibnqirtaiba removed over half of the content originally in the article, so its current state cannot reliably be consulted as its basis. With the sources above, there is more than likely content to be added back that would not belong to potential merge targets. WP:MERGE advises against merging where the separate topics can be expanded into standalone articles, and the sourcing presented above establishes that this one can, under both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATOR criterion 3. Madeleine (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG per above sources, and WP:NCREATOR makes it cut and dried. Merging is not appropriate per GM. At least one editor has expressed intent in improving the article after the AfD ends, so redirecting is less appropriate than keeping. WP:NCREATOR expressly permits coverage of a creator's significant work, rather than requiring every article to be a conventional profile of the creator; particularly important in the case of a pseudonymous creator.
BLP1E applies only when all its conditions are satisfied, beginning with reliable sources covering the person only in connection with one event. The cited coverage above spans the development and operation of 15.ai, the 2022 Voiceverse incident, and retrospective discussion of the project's influence. The sourcing signifies that this is a sustained body of work and its consequences, than a person briefly caught in a singular news event. Madeleine (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - decidedly not BLP1E - it's a creative process, which is generally not considered 1 event, in the same way that someone known for one book or one song or one company is not a BLP1E - in this case, there's a lot of coverage during and after the project on different stages of it and on the subject's work. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If 15.ai did not exist- for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesamehoneytart 02:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
NCREATOR (and NACTOR, but here NCREATOR)'s whole thing is that this is the way notability can, in fact, be inherited - from notable work to its creator. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
NCREATOR does not give automatic inheritance. At most, it says notability is *likely* if xxx or yyy. So for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesamehoneytart 17:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Every notability guideline is "likely" or "presumed" - the vagueness here is mostly for WP:What Wikipedia is not. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Source files

Source files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Source code because it offers nothing that can't be a short section there (if that). Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

redirect as suggested — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep
[COI: doing citizen research « Open Source 2.0: From Open Source Software to Open Source Resources?, therefore working on improvement of open source and open-source software pages]
Hello, I did this change, it was previously redirecting to source code as mentionned in Talk:Source files. I saw the page exists while trying to create a red link to 'source files', seeing it redirecting to source code being inapropriate for the expected use.
So obviously against the redirect. We can see source file terminology being used in various fields, the current references provide use cases of source files with documents in research (.tex/.md → .pdf), in education (.odt/.docx/.h5p → .pdf/.html), for hardware components (.kicad/.FCStd → .gerber/.stl), image design (.psd/.xcf → .png/.jpg, wikipedia having recommendation to publish them on Wikipedia:Image source files), fonts (.sfd/.glyphs → .ttf/.otf), movies (.blend/.kdenlive → .mp4/.mkv), could be in music (.als/.flp → .mp3) also, and the list is probably non-exhaustive.
This has nothing to do with software source code, creating subsections in source code for these formats would be conceptual inconsistency. Source code is a type of source file, not the other way around. Could be important to get separate source files page to explain editability of digital resources. @Jerod Lycett and GhostInTheMachine: Could you develop your position in light of these arguments for the redirect? Thanks in advance. AbcSxyZ (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
IMHO, those are also variants of source code, just markup language code as opposed to runnable code. Also, page titles don't have to be synonyms for a redirect to be necessary. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 20:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Are markdown files seriously a source code for you ? As it's not described as such on wikipedia at least, as Markup language is not described as source code either, as source code page do not explain markup language (just linked in see also). AbcSxyZ (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Those are source code. They get compiled into the end result, whether that's an executable or not. Java traditionally gets compiled into a .jar which still needs an interpreter, the JVM. A movie or image etc. is no different. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes there is this similarity from an initial format to an end format, a "compilation", that's why there are called source files accross domains and this structural similarity is exactly the argument for a dedicated article on the concept. But strongly disagree with the rational that 'it's source code':
1/ Source code is about programming languages, this is not programming languages.
2/ Source code is about human readable format, some type of source files can be binary (ex:psd/blend files)
3/ People simply don't refer it as source code, but source files. Because it's not programming language and they are not software developer. You're trying to override existing terminology usage against (incorrect) technical reality.
What explanation of "source code" would coherently cover all these cases while remaining consistent? The explanation of source code would have to be changed, in contradiction with all existing explanations of the notion. Because none of this is about source code. AbcSxyZ (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Even from a programming perspective the redirect is certainly conceptually wrong.
Source code is the instructions, the content, while the source file is the container of the source code. Some cases where source code may not be stored in source files (see https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/220781/source-code-vs-source-files). AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
With everyone supporting the redirect it seems I will have to add all of these things into source code page to reveal how absurd is all of this... Wtf debate lol, but revealing the state of consideration to source files beyond software. I will let you explain why we speak about hardware cad file into source code page 😂 AbcSxyZ (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I feel like all the ref I brought worth nothing. There is a problem here. 18 ref outside software covering 6-7 fields... AbcSxyZ (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Two recent Wikipedia edits link to source files from Open source#Fonts and Open-source hardware — if you think a redirect to "source code" seems coherent in those contexts. AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Was also added to Open educational resources#Open Source Educational Resources AbcSxyZ (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yep. Makes perfect sense. I feel like maybe you should invite whoever it is that added those links to come join in the conversation, see if they think it makes sense too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It's me actually. So ok if that makes sense for you... but at this point I (tried) to deconstruct every single arguments and even the fact that for software source files and source code are two different things, I can't do more 😅 Waiting for more external pov on my side. AbcSxyZ (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
+ provide a source stating that CAD files, font source files, or educational source files are "source code". Without that, this is an unsourced opinion rather than an argument for the redirect. AbcSxyZ (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

In the context of software development, a source file is a file containing source code.[1][2] The two terms are therefore distinct: source code refers to the program text, while a source file refers to the file in which that text is stored.

References

  1. ^ "Source File". PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2026-07-19.
  2. ^ Meredith, Alisdair; Hughes, Lori (2025-05-19). Input Files Are Source Files (PDF) (Report). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21.
A little sentence added to the page dedicated to all of you. Now provide sources explaining that source code and source files are the same thing to support this redirect. Sources, not opinions. Therefore, as distinct notions, they do not satisfy any of the purposes of redirects. AbcSxyZ (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jerodlycett & @Metallurgist You maintain your position ? No consensus ? Being not really a matter of personal opinion but technical reality.
As source file & source code are distinct even from a software perspective and source file notion being used in other domains without reference to source code as it's not about programming language at all, just as an editable element. The fact that there is a transformation process turns it into something analogous but distinct from software.
In light of the sources and arguments provided, I see no basis that would justify this redirect. AbcSxyZ (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That you fail to see something doesn't change the facts that a source file contains the code used, whether it's compiled like C, interpreted, like Perl, SVG, LaTeX, and XML, it's still code. Java's bytecode isn't even human readable and yet is a source file that is code. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
So if the source file contains the source code, the source file in itself is something different from the code. It sounds like a maintain with an argument that prove the distinction. In some ways, if we speak about the fact that everything is binary code, then I may agree 🙃
« In computing, source code, or simply code or source, is human readable plain text that can eventually result in controlling the behavior of a computer » (cf Wikipedia)
Not human readable, not source code.
Bytecode (also called portable code or p-code) is an instruction set designed for efficient execution by a software interpreter. Unlike human-readable source code, [...] (cf Wikipedia)
Bytecode is not source code.
You wrongly conflate source code and source file. AbcSxyZ (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If I can just add that this page would answer a real encyclopedic need. Just type "what is a source file" on a search engine and you will find various blog posts, topics on forums explaining it, from designers first. Seems to have a little daily traffic also.
BTW, page improved since relistings and stub removed to have a decent basis better than bullet points.
+ Wikidata & Wiktionary entries created AbcSxyZ (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Computing proposed deletions (PROD)

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.