Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Software. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} 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 Software. 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

Software

DownloadStudio

AfDs for this article:

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

"awarded by PC Magazine as the best download manager in its Utility Guide 2004". Is this enough for WP:NSOFT? I have my doubts. No other indications of notability in the article or in my BEFORE _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Download manager: The full review of the software in PC Mag can be found here, and a report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory gives a very brief description of its features (link). This level of sourcing is insufficient, but only by a hair. I could be persuaded to change my vote to Keep if someone else finds better sourcing, which I think is a real possibility. I will also note that the previous AfD contains a bunch of Keep votes that are prime examples of arguments to avoid, but one vote does suggest a decent merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maatkit

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability Greenman (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found some passing mentions but nothing that would satisfy GNG & SIGCOV. Encoded Talk 💬 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ModelRight

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

No evidence of notability Greenman (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete per nom. Only source goes back to the company itself. Urchincrawler (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Encoded Talk 💬 14:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberduck

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines: no independent sources cited at all, even after being tagged for sources for 12 years, and tagged for notability further back than that. (I put a PROD on this article, but it was quite rightly removed, because there had previously been a PROD, which I hadn't seen. That previous PROD was removed without explanation by an editor who expressed the opinion that the subject might not be notable.) JBW (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing that isn't primary or in a RS now in the article, all I can pull up are download links or GetHub items. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a review of Cyberduck 3 that's already in the article from Ars Technica. There is also a tutorial on how to use Cyberduck in this 2017 book by Sarah Martin. She has a decade of digital marketing experience and describes how to use Cyberduck to build a website with Squarespace. This review of another file transfer utility called Transmit makes comparisons between Transmit and Cyberduck. The review is written by Glenn Fleishman, a career journalist.

There aren't inline citations for any of these sources in the article at the moment, but in my opinion, the sources that exist are sufficient to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the references given by HyperAccelerated I believe that this page is sufficiently notable. BJackJS talk 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmiExpress

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

Fails WP: GNG. I cannot find sources to establish notability. None of the sources that are currently in the article appear reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ionize (CMS)

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

Tagged for many years, no evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of content management systems per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal, data about latest version etc. can be transferred to wikidata. Smihael (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per 4meter4. I tried to find sources but couldn't find any, so I believe this fails WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:GNG. Also tried to find sources and couldn't, and their website 404s suggesting there probably won't be any new ones any time soon. Encoded Talk 💬 14:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FireHOL

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

Fails WP: GNG. FireHOL maintains a dataset of malicious IPs which a couple studies use, but this article is about a firewall configuration tool that doesn't have any significant coverage. For this reason, I think the article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. Google books and google scholar seems to have a number of books and journals on cyber security, network forensics, ransomware, etc. discussing FireHOL. I confess it is too technical for me to evaluate the sources, but I do think the volume of coverage suggests this is a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for voting. I'm not sure if you read the AfD rationale, but there is some literature about a dataset that an organization called "The FireHOL Project" maintains. Those sources will appear in searches but aren't actually about the subject, a configuration tool that (confusingly) is also named FireHOL. (If this doesn't make any sense to you, consider that it's very common for organizations to release products whose names are identical to that of the organization creating them. For example, people commonly refer to "Google Search" as just "Google".) I understand that you don't feel comfortable evaluating the sources you found, but this is why we don't keep or delete articles based on how many WP: GOOGLEHITS they return. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADS-AC

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish notability. This was dePRODed without sourcing improvements, and the user who dePRODed went admitted on my Talk page that they do not have sources to establish notability.

This has also been tagged for notability issues for four months. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you decide so, but please don't vex me with more discussions. This has been going on for 3 months with undecided results, i want no more discussion, this is too much, do what you want. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come again? You can abstain. Nobody is forcing you to participate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I abstain, i already said everything. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But please end it faster. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also did not admit that i don't have sources to establish notability, i just said that it is old and i cannot find no more sources, as things in web disappear in time. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is here to discuss whether this article should be deleted. Nobody here asked you to ramble about a topic of your choice. If you do not have anything to contribute with respect to whether this article should be deleted, stay away and stop cluttering this page. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to contribute, but as i said i already said everything. Only just please don't put words into my mouth, as you did when you started this request for deletion (at the beginning of this page). Thank you. Tkorrovi (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly not here to have an on-topic discussion, and I have no business with you. Goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you have no business about the matter, then who should go away? Tkorrovi (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that text still the same? Anyway, the "user who dePRODed", one can see that in your talk page, the only user who talked with you about ADS-AC, was me. Tkorrovi (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has references of sources, and what is this lack of notability about, lack of sources, if it is not over complicated issue that can be interpreted in many ways, but it is a very simple article. Tkorrovi (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about 'experimental' software. I'd have gone A7 with it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that Tkorrovi might have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject in this article. I've left them a message on their Talk page. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, i have no interest in promoting myself, no personal interest, neither do i get any benefit from any of it. This is not WP: COI, i'm not writing about myself, and not in the interest of these who contributed to the software or anything related. The ADS-AC article was in fact created not by me, but by someone else, there were a number of people involved in these issues. I didn't even like creating the article at first, but as it was created, it stayed, was there for 10 years i guess. To be the way to show some principles in artificial consciousness, including these by Dennett and McCarthy, and implementing them in software, not mentioned anywhere else. My interest is artificial consciousness, i created the artificial consciousness article in Wikipedia, many many years ago, and i have been one of the main contributors to it since. This software is part of my interest, it has been a common interest of several people, one can see in the AI Forum (archive), elsewhere in the Internet, but these sites are mostly no longer there any more. My interest is artificial consciousness, a certain field of study, this is no way in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia. Or if you claim anything, would you also then propose how to improve it, other than removing all knowledge, thank you if you do. Tkorrovi (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural revolutionaries, destroy knowledge, clear decision. There is no talk about the principle of generality and multiple drafts model, and implementing them in software, in the AC or AI articles. sure remove that knowledge, so there will be one more thing that no one knows about. Tkorrovi (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone bad, only confrontation, no talk about the actual article. This is how it shouldn't be. The article has improved during the process, it is no longer considered to have lack of sources, only the lack of notability tag remains, which also supposed to be about lack of sources, and is no longer relevant, but it is there. There has been discussion with another editor, that sources for open source software are not so simple issue than say geography articles, there mostly are no journal or newspaper articles about most of the open source software. The other of my concerns is what it is about, and what the software implements, the two principles proposed by Dennett and McCarthy, their meaning, and actual importance in software. This article mentions it, the software is about it, and i don't want it to be lost from Wikipedia. Thus i think that here should be some other solution, improving and evolving things further, rather than mute deletion. Thank you for these who paid attention. Tkorrovi (talk), 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of monospaced typefaces#Iosevka. czar 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iosevka

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

This article cites no secondary sources whatsoever, and a preliminary Google search confirms that there is only one news article covering this typeface, and it is in passing. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The search in question, for those curious: https://news.google.com/search?q=iosevka /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of monospaced typefaces per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed this policy. Thank you; I see this as a much better option. I'll leave this open to see what other editors think, though. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of monospaced typefaces. YC comments and GitHub repos don't establish notability, but redirects are cheap. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2M (DOS)

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sources to support notability, but I did find a failed merge proposal for this page as well as some baseless assertions that the subject is notable.

To be clear, if you're voting Keep, we need to see specific citations to reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius_Intelligence

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radius Intelligence

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

Article lacks notability; there is not substantial media coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL), and the sources cited are niche and industry-specific, lacking sufficient audience (WP:AUDIENCE). The article appears to be self-promotion. Similar issues were raised with the now-deleted article about the company CEO. Tripofmice (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kabbage as per WP:ATD. None of the source meet criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pics.io

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

Defunct? software for which no notability appeared to have ever been attained. I cannot identify a merger or redirect target Star Mississippi 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Software. Star Mississippi 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a cloud storage image plug-in...of which there is very little use of overall because most users of cloud storage edit images on their devices, not in a janky web interface that doesn't even offer any clarity on who developed it. Wasn't notable in this guise, not notable in the usual 'pivot to AI' sense, either. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another bit of software, nothing inherently notable about it. Also, the editor that created the article was possibly an undisclosed paid editor based on their arguably spammy contribs. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

ArkTS

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sourcing to show that the subject meets WP: GNG. The subject receives in-depth coverage in two papers, published by separate groups of authors at Chinese universities. These papers appeared in ASE 2024, meaning that they are peer-reviewed and thus credible. Here are the papers: [1] [2] I do think this article has several issues, but they can be fixed without deleting the article, so I am inclined to keep it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally linked to the same paper twice. Here is the link to the other paper. Sorry about that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~I couldn't find two independent sources satisfying GNG.~~ (updated) there's a few sources likely passing GNG, but it's weak. User:HyperAccelerated - ~~is that~~ are those sources independent? There's not wide coverage yet, may be WP:TOOSOON. Nothing against draftifying. Widefox; talk 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Widefox; talk 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- do you have reason to believe they aren't? One paper is from a team of researchers at Southern University of Science and Technology and another from a team at Beihang University. There isn't anything in the Acknowledgement sections to indicate they got funding from Huawei (who developed ArkTS), and if there was substantial collaboration with Huawei I'd expect someone from Huawei to be on the author list. I suspect there's more coverage in Chinese, but I think that these papers are sufficient to establish notability anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected and updated my summary. Widefox; talk 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two books, ^[1] is an introduction to the syntax of ArkTS, and ^[2] covers ArkTS on HarmonyOS 3.1. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ 刘玥; 张荣超 (2024-07-01). 鸿蒙原生应用开发：ArkTS语言快速上手 [Developing Native Applications on HarmonyOS: A Quick Start with ArkTS Language]. 人民邮电出版社. ISBN 9787115642509.
^ Way Lau. 鸿蒙HarmonyOS应用开发入门 [Getting Started with HarmonyOS Application Development]. Tsinghua University Press. ISBN 9787115642509.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a bit more discussion of the new sources before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable object (computing)

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

I'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge. Looking on Google Scholar, this seems to be a different concept than Portable Distributed Objects. The article could use some clarification for its uses, particularly for translation, but I see enough notability for it to stay. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a DICTDEF, and a excessively-specific (and obsolete) definition at that. The only source is a 2006 patent. gettext is the article about .po files, the .po redirect should be retargeted there. I don't think a DAB page for Remote direct memory access and a half-dozen similar terms is justified. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Portable Distributed Objects: I agree that this page and Portable Distributed Objects more or less refer to the same thing and should be merged. BJackJS talk 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep !votes aren't really citing any particular coverage specifically enough, but I don't see a consensus here yet between merge and delete. More discussion on sourcing and/or merge targets would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 刘玥; 张荣超 (2024-07-01). 鸿蒙原生应用开发：ArkTS语言快速上手 [Developing Native Applications on HarmonyOS: A Quick Start with ArkTS Language]. 人民邮电出版社. ISBN 9787115642509.

[2] Way Lau. 鸿蒙HarmonyOS应用开发入门 [Getting Started with HarmonyOS Application Development]. Tsinghua University Press. ISBN 9787115642509.

[1]

[2]