Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shade sandbox

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!} 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shade sandbox

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Software isn't exactly notable in any way. Article appears to be entirely promotional and the creator of it has only contributed to the one article [1] along with adding a link to it on Sandboxie. [2] Sources on the program appear to be nonexistent, with few websites briefly mentioning its existence; article itself uses very poor sources. Dawnbails (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful for software to have a collector page where information can be gathered later on. I don't receive any commission for supporting this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.217.205 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note here that this IP's only contribution at all is to this AFD, and stating "I don't receive any commission for supporting this" makes this reply seem more like WP:CONFLICT.

As for the argument made in the reply itself, this article has existed for nearly eight years with minor improvements and using just about the same references. I think it's safe on my part to say that information here cannot be gathered; there is no information to gather on this program that doesn't come from either its own creators or from very brief mentions on random tech news and tutorial websites that don't qualify for WP:GNG. Dawnbails (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I can find exactly zero sources with significant coverage of the subject. Ignoring the fact that IP's comment is their only contribution, the sentiment appears to be misguided - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tollens (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable piece of software, there are no reviews of it in PC Mag, Cnet or just about any of the other sources we'd use for software. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2023 (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.