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

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!} 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mogenet

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

Was likely created by WP:COI subject. Unclear notability from WP:BIO. Brief mention of subject in RS doesn't pass WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Software, and France. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source analysis: 1. Bilanz (Handelsblatt) is likely sigcov but, as a trade magazine, may be paid. 2. Telegraph has less than one sentence of coverage about him, not sigcov. 3. Le Monde has only quotes, zero sigcov. 4. Wired Italy mentions his name a whopping 15 times, but has no sigcov of him or his biography, only quotes. 5. Le Temps (link is broken, the article can be found here) also only mentions him, no sigcov.

Since this is a COI creation I will not bother to search for other sources. If another editor with more patience than me finds enough new sources to meet the GNG, ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per what's written above, especially the bit about COI creation MaskedSinger (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. In-depth coverage by multiple unrelated sources indicating encyclopedically WP:DUE biographical prose appears absent. WP:COI concerns are well-founded, but merely explain this article's existence. If the subject were notable, the article would merit a rewrite from scratch by someone who is not the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems like it's about someone who isn't quite famous enough yet to justify a whole page. Waqar💬 18:24, 6 July 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.

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!} 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TokenEx

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP.

References include: - Two local news articles (Tulsa World, The Oklahoman) - Two trade press article (PYMNTS, SatelliteTODAY) - One press release (PRNewswire)

Most coverage is brief and concerns partnerships with other companies. Brandon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Oklahoma. Brandon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' there appears to be no independent coverage in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 22:57, 10 July 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeX Foundry

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

Fails GNG, no reliable sources BoraVoro (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 2 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!} 03:59, 9 July 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.

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. Owen× ☎ 11:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion (software)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT, old catalogue entry about discontinued software that was never important. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find any coverage that would satisfy the WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV or notability found. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 8 July 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.

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. czar 13:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Square 9 Softworks

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

PRODed this one four years ago. Recreated by the company's marketing officer. Still fails the notability guidelines for companies. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Connecticut. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any notability of it. Only article I can find that even mentions it is this which I doubt is reliable enough for inclusion. Half the websites I find upon Googling it are just review websites. Procyon117 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus ineligible as a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:TRADES, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or otherwise fail the tests of eligibility under WP:ORGTRIV. Nothing comes up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. As to the citations in the article: ArsTechnica is actually more reliable than TechCrunch (ArsTechnica is rated as generally reliable, while TechCrunch is rated as marginally reliable on WP:RSP). However, none of the three citations provide significant coverage. Source 1 is WP:ORGTRIV (it talks about a standard transaction, namely "a capital transaction, such as raised capital"). Source 2 only mentions Security Scorecard with regard to something else, and Source 3 is a listicle. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the analysis conducted by Epicgenius. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 5 July 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YafaRay

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFT since no independent, non-UGC sources about the software could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Github sites and the like, but I find this [1], not sure we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are concerns about the notability of this software. The only sources currently listed are the developer's website and potentially a user-generated content platform. Waqar💬 17:15, 30 June 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivu 3D Workstation

(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. toweli (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this fails WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:05, 28 June 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.

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!} 05:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HLSW

(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. toweli (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. toweli (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to be found. Charcoal feather (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too, couldn't find any sigcov on the topic from reliable sources. MK at your service. 11:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some searching too, and couldn't find any credible information to back this up. Deletion seems like the right call. Waqar💬 17:33, 1 July 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.

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSilver Framework

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

Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirecting and/or merging to Microsoft Silverlight is an AtD that I'm comfortable with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HyperAccelerated,

Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated, are you satisfied with the sources brought up below? -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also really should not be creating articles about subjects that you have a disclosed conflict of interest with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply @HyperAccelerated.

Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:

InfoQ - It has been one of the most relevant online sources for software development topics since 2006. InfoQ team started following OpenSilver in 2020 and covered several releases of OpenSilver (I assume whenever they identified interest according to their editorial strategy). The writers covering OpenSilver topics are Edin Kapic, a Microsoft MVP based in Barcelona, Spain, and Arthur Casals, an AI Researcher with a Ph.D.
InfoWorld - It is one of the trusted sources of information related to open-source, application development, cloud computing, and other IT-related topics. InfoWorld has also covered OpenSilver, with a few news articles from the past 3-4 years. The OpenSilver-related articles are written by Paul Krill, an editor with 30+ years of experience in InfoWorld Media Group. InfoWorld is a part of the Foundry umbrella along with CIO, CSO, Computer World, Mac World, PC World, and others. They explicitly say they don't accept contributing articles to collect visits and publicity.
I Programmer was founded by Mike James, an editor-in-chief and author of books. I Programmer published a series of articles about OpenSilver in the past years. Besides Mike James other authors covered the articles related to OpenSilver including Alex Denham and Kay Ewbank.
Ghacks - a tech postal has 2 articles about OpenSilver. The author of the articles is Martin Brinkmann.
Kurt Shintaku's blog - Kurt Shintaku is a Client Technology Lead at Microsoft, working for about 30 years in the corporation. He found an interest in OpenSilver in the early days when OpenSilver was beta. He recognized OpenSilver as a suitable solution for owners of Microsoft Silverlight-based solutions when Microsoft announced the end of support.
The Register - The article was written by Tim Anderson, a journalist who covers various technical topics.
Matt Eland's Blog - Kill all defects - Matt Eland is a US-based Microsoft MVP in AI interested in OpenSilver as an open-source technology for replacing MS Silverlight. Obviously, he was motivated in 2020 to write about it in his blog. He is a blogger, book, and course author.
AlternativeTo.org - it has been recognized as an alternative or in a way successor of MS Silverlight.
Distributed Memory Blog was created by an independent software developer Steve Gilham who wrote a series of tech articles related to OpenSilver.

Vasbu (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please find one more source:

Root.cz - In 2021 Petr Krčmář was writing about OpenSilver, recognizing a potential solution in it for those who have custom developed applications based on MS Silverlight.

Vasbu (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.

Vasbu (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heise online - An article written by Holger Schwichtenberg, German author of computer books.

Vasbu (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.

Vasbu (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [2], [3]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage is present, nothing seems to be wrong with WP:GNG either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated I updated the sources in the article. Please take a look when you have time to review the update. Thank you. Vasbu (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get another review of these sources brought up in this discussion. Right now, I see no consensus to Delete or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The non-blogs brought forth above are good enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vasbu. Substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:28, 21 July 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.

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!} 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipgenerator

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

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mjks28:, What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release.

Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and can't find any sources either that prove the subject of the article is WP:N, so I change my argument to delete. Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like an advertisement. . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 29 June 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3

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

The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 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 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 29 June 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.

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 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beachhead Solutions

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:

brief mention in WSJ

A short mention in a 2006 piece from The Mercury News: Beachhead Solutions in Santa Clara sells a $129-a-year service, Lost Data Destruction, which enables an administrator to send a command to destroy data on a laptop that has been stolen. If the thief tries to hook the laptop up to the Internet, it will send a message to the administrator and trigger the data destruction. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The funny part is that I can't find secondary sources to verify the articles content. The already existing sources, unfortunately are primary sources/nearly connected sources that doesn't even order any solution to WP:N and WP:V. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:44, 4 July 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.

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. Second time I've closed an AFD on this article as "Delete". Let's not see another immediate recreation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Notcoin, as the redirect target of Telegram (software), or any other target, was not found suitable. The page had been moved to draftspace on the day of its creation, as not ready for mainspace, however the creator had rejected the draftification. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, and Software. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telegram: Significant coverage in BBC Pidgin and likely in the non-English articles as well (which I cannot read). Telegram article is long but could easily accommodate a short section on the game, which seems to have drawn attention. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to The Open Network (TON) would be more suitable in this case. - Anwon (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is this? A game? A crypto-coin? A ponzi scheme? The sources don't say (and are largely about a related game called "Hamster Combat"), which demonstrates that there is insufficiently substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am opposed to a redirect to Telegram (software). If this content were on the Telegram article, I would remove it as WP:UNDUE and inherently somewhat promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Persian article has همستر کامبت (Hamster Kombat) as the article subject: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AA Hamster Kombat and Notcoin seem like they are separate crypto games on Telegram? From machine translation and the images, the sources cited in the English article, like this one, appear to be about Hamster Kombat or crypto games in general, not about Notcoin. For a redirect, Telegram (software) seems an appropriate target. I'll abstain from voting, though, because I can't read most of the coverage on these games. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the first AFD discussion, the closure was Delete but this discussion is bringing up more possible outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Open Network (TON). The Persian-language sources seem to be primarily about a hamster-related game of a different name that employs the Notcoin/"Natcoin" token. But I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV for Notcoin itself, at least not in sources that clear WP:NCRYPTO; however, WP:TRADES sources ([4], [5]) do show evidence that it's a major game/token on TON, so as an AtD that redirect makes sense. Like Walsh90210 I would oppose a redirect to Telegram. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more unimportant cryptotrash. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. fails general notability guideline. subject of article is also unfocused. ltb d l (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – what an unholy mess. Plainly not remotely suitably sourced, and the article content wanders all over the place. Draftify if the user wants, but since they don't seem to want that, deletion is the right option. Possibly salt so they don't do it again. Or block them, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 10 July 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. also look like an advertisement! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage of the company that passes WP:GNG. The suggestion that some of the sources are likely to be paid for or sponsored posts without clear evidence of such should not be the reason to delete. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely. Despite 38 references, almost all of them would be excluded for WP:NCORP purposes under WP:ORGTRIV, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. However, this Forbes India staff-authored print magazine story, this cover story in The Week, and this Financial Express story clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 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.