Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

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:

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|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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software/archive 2

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Geliyoo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Geliyoo
• Articles for deletion/Geliyoo (2nd nomination)

Geliyoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to the discussion on WP:DRV, allowed to renominate. The previous AFD reason was vague; all the votes were also vague, almost like someone is behind it according to the vandalism/advertisement/spam edits in the history of this article. I do not want to attack as I've made mistakes too. So I'll just state the facts. These links are broken/promotional: Black-listed: . Press release: . Wordpress: . Plagiarism(same as wikipedia article): .

Also, on WP:DRV, contributor who also participated in the previous AFD, suggested links that show up on Google after some promotional/spam sites. Addressing those links; Controversial information that's been removed (History of article), also points to more reason of deletion of the article. If it were reliable info, I would've edited it on the article. Controversial links: . Written with similar promotional content: .

This shows, Geliyoo goes against WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Due to WP:G11 as the article does not have independent sources and is almost advertisement even if the article has been on Wikipedia for a while. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I didn't really be specific in the first AfD because the nomination felt a bit more like a joke (inexperienced user who didn't give a proper reason to delete). I still think the sources I gave on DRV are enough to warrant notability. I'm going to add a controversy section (back? Didn't know it existed before) and trim the whole thing ("Founders" and "Projects launched" sections seem bs to me) to remove promotional content. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Article trimmed to remove obvious promotional sentences. I agree with the nominator when he says that the article was advertisement. I also added back the criticism section removed by an IP 4 years ago and expanded on it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Styyx in the DRV. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: The page is really good and meets the required Wikipedia policy for a standard page Francisca po (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2021 (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 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. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ares Galaxy

Ares Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. None of the four sources provided in the article and on the talk page are both reliable and in-depth. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2021 (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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

KineticGlue

KineticGlue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A run-of-the-mill enterprise software vendor that fails NCORP. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to acquisition reports, interviews and brief mentions in listicles. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Mostly interview sorts of coverage with no independent perspective of a journalist on the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (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 programming languages by type#Scripting languages. Nobody is for keeping this article with these sources, but there is reluctance to delete it outright. Redirection is a compromise that allows restoration if better sources are found. Sandstein 07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Winbatch

Winbatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability under our guidelines. One reference is cited and three external links are given but all four link to the vendor's website and own words, making them clearly primary. Searches for other useful sources on the web, books, news, newspapers and scholar turned up an old ad, a page where you could buy it and a history of it of unknown origin (though it looks suspiciously promotional, as if written by the vendor) and only a few trivial mentions, e.g., on sites merely listing various products. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There are some articles about Command Post (where this language originated) in the PC Mag magazine: 11 October 1988 p. 48 (review; 2/3 page), 16 January 1990 p. 145-146 (in cover story Best of 1989; half page).

Now Winbatch itself: PC Mag 24 October 1995 p. 40 (first looks; 1/4 page). Not much more. However, batch language in Norton Desktop for Windows should be the same as Winbatch (per PC Mag 24 September 1991 p. 36), so there could be some plausible redirect target (NDW is covered in the Norton Commander article, a phrase about its batch language could be added with the mention of Winbatch using the above reference). Pavlor (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is helpful. The first look at Norton Desktop has a section under the heading, "Norton's new batch language", with the claim that "Wilson Windowware's $70 shareware program Winbatch is identical to NDW's batch language, and WinBatch includes a macro program that's not available in The Norton Desktop for Windows", that's the only mention and it's so trivial I don't think it's particularly helpful in establishing notability. The first look at Winbatch 95 is more promising. This source is signed BS (presumable Barry Simon) and while it's only 5 paragraphs, it does include some clearly secondary opinions, e.g., a remark that "While more than adequate for basic operations, WinBatch 95 is unable to record anything more complicated than straight keyboard input." If a second, hopefully, better source could be found, I would be willing to retract my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, my intention was to propose a redirect target as such a niche language may be of bordeline notability. There is also some coverage in DOSWorld, No 21, May 1995, p. 67 (3/5 of page: More power for Windows) - available on archive.org. Pavlor (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - There are many Google Books hits, but they seem to be mostly ads for the product in 1990s PC mags. Nonetheless, there do seem to be a few more substantial mentions of the technology, e.g., this. I don't know if this coverage rises to the level to allow us to write a verifiable article on the product. I'm not convinced the Wilson Windowware product is the same as the Norton Desktop for Windows batch language: it would be a little surprising for Norton to use a shareware product in this way. I'm reluctant to delete given that this seems to be a product that has seen decades of use. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2021 (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

ApowerMirror

ApowerMirror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotion of an application created by a non notable company. References do not pass WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find sufficient coverage about ApowerMirror to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see this discussion on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 16:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above and the illuminating discussion on Bbb23's talk page. Probably could have been PRODed. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2021 (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reza Malekzadeh (entrepreneur)

Reza Malekzadeh (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a promotional article where none of the sources listed demonstrate the notability of the subject. At best, he is mentioned in passing in sources. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep IMO the subject is notable, but the article must be fixed. It is entirely a promotional piece.JalenPhotos2 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — After additional consideration, I have changed my mind. This article is too far gone to be salvaged. Delete. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Indeed, the article is too PROMO. Most of the sources are primary or just spam. However, there are several good sources, like the CNN interview. The subject was the public face of VMware for many years. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsure what interview you're referring to. The only CNN source is this one, which only mentions the subject in passing. Also note that interview-style articles cannot be use to satisfy WP:GNG. When you talk about the other "several good sources", which ones are you referring to exactly? Because I only see crap in the references section. Mottezen (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Business 2.0 is not crap. Several universities libraries collect this edition, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=fDQiAQAAMAAJ I don't agree that the subject is mentioned in passing. If you remove his words the statements will lose foundation in this article. Moreover, the same phrases are cited in other sources, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=XO4bAQAAMAAJ Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

For reference, here is the only paragraph where Malekzadeh is mentioned in the 23-pararaph article: For instance, in response to customers' ceaseless clamoring for easier remote access to their corporate networks, Cisco scouts tracked down an obscure little outfit called Twingo. Engineers Reza Malekzadeh and Gregorie Gentil founded the startup 20 months ago with less than $100,000 of their own money. They bought used hardware on Craigslist, hired a few part-time coders, and within 12 months had come up with Twingo Secure Desktop, an ingenious technology that allows road warriors to securely connect to their office computers from any Web browser. Some VCs expressed interest in the company, but Malekzadeh says Twingo realized that what it had created was "more a feature for a product than a company." When Cisco dangled a $5.5 million cash offer, Twingo bit. "It's not such a bad thing to just be an addition to an existing product," Malekzadeh says. "It's OK not to go public.". Simply put, this is not significant coverage. Mottezen (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the quantitative approach (counting the paragraphs, sources, words). Books may have even more than 23 paragraphs. So, should we ignore them because of that? In this case what matters is the fact that 2 independent reputable sources (Business 2.0 and the Entrepreneurship magazine) cited the subject to support certain statements. This means that they trusted the notability of the subject. Maybe that's because the subject was invited to several international conferences. Maybe this guy just fooled everybody like many others do. If there were more good sources I'd voted for a strong keep, not a weak one. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not "The quantitate approach", this is a clause of WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The paragraph above is clearly trivial coverage. Just one example used by the author to demonstrate a point.

And I don't have access to the Entrepreneurship magazine text, but if cites "the same phrases" as you said above, then I presume that it doesn't provide significant coverage either. Mottezen (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Google books lets you preview the text without having full access: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=XO4bAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Reza+Malekzadeh It's exactly the same text. The fact that the claim is supported by reliable secondary sources is exactly the opposite of original research. If the subject is not notable, then why at least 2 editorials are citing him to demonstrate specific claims? They don't cite random people. In my opinion this is totally not trivial coverage. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if its "exactly the same text", then it counts as the same source. If we were to count this paragraph as significant coverage, that would still just be one RS. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mottezen (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be glad to read more opinions. If nobody else wants to vote I'll agree with your point. Maybe this level of coverage is really not good enough. I've removed my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, beneath the promo there is some coverage of the subject: this and this. Agreed that much of this is promo however. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider these two sources reliable either. The first source contains extensive citations of subject's words, which usually means the source might be significantly influenced by the subject. Also, the site is very strange: it appears to be just someone's early attempt to make a personal blog or news website (journalism excercise, perhaps). It has only a few news-style articles on random topics. It looks like someone has an FTP hosting and dropped some files in there (top-level dir). Files include some personal-looking stuff like excerpts from random emails and photo backups. The second source consists entirely of quotations from press release made by subjects' employer (the rest is filler words and transition sentences). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources are either directly promotional or are not sufficiently independent to be reliable. Anton.bersh (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite there yet. Also, too much promotion. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - promotional article with insufficient sourcing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 17 July 2021 (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 merge to Gnutella2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FileScope

FileScope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. This software was abandoned in 2014 and lacked any sources reporting on it even when it was supported. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is mentioned in various research articles, for example: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=19843 (PhD thesis), http://artemis.cslab.ece.ntua.gr:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/14783, http://dwl.kiev.ua/art/p2p/p2p-end.pdf The latter mentions that the subject is one of the most used clients for Gnutella2. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.KBAHT: Thanks for finding these links. Unfortunatelly, I don't think even one of them has "in-depth coverage" of FileScope. The second (Greek) and third (Russian) sources just list FileScope among many other programs, they do not have a single sentence fully dedicated to FileScope. I could not find download link for the first source, but abstract does not inspire confidene and even if this source was in-depth, it would not be sufficient basis to hinge notability on. Perhaps, there are more sources? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh: I agree about the Spanish and the Greek sources. They basically mention that the subject is one of several other P2P clients supporting Gnutella2. The Russian source is saying that it's one of the most popular Gnutella2 clients. From the GNG point of view the subject is not notable, of course. However, the WP:NSOFT policies allow to include the software which is notable in a specific field, not necessarily in the general scope. If Gnutella2 is a notable P2P technology, then the most popular clients for Gnutella2 should be notable as well, based on WP:NSOFT. That's why I voted to keep the article. If my interpretation of WP:NSOFT is wrong or Gnutella2 is not notable, then I will not insist. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.KBAHT: Wikipedia articles need content useful to readers and supported by reliable sources. Right now, I don't see anything that could warrant more than two sentences about Filescope. As of now, FileScope article just creates confussion and does not convey much information. It has only one reference to filescope.com which is meant to support a vague claim that "the application is cross-platform but current builds only support running it under Microsoft Windows, but it is due to also run under Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unix-based platforms." So does it support only Windows or Linux/Mac OS/Unix? The Russian source just states (translated for convenience): "The most popular client programs for Gnutella2 are Shareaza, Kiwi, Alpha, Morpheus, Gnucleus, Adagio Pocket G2, FileScope, iMesh, MLDonkey." This content might be suitable for Gnutella2 article, but not really useful in FileScope.

If there is actual content which could be used in FileScope, I'd be glad to integrate it into FileScope myself if noone else wants to do it. If there is no supported content suitable for an article, logically, there can be no article. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh: Thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with you. So, I'm withdrawing my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. As of this writing I don't see how this passes WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - We don't have any reliable sources in English for the software, so I think the prospects for getting an adequate-quality article under this name are slight. I'm inclined to redirect/merge, in view of the fact that the article is referred to by many other articles, may be of interest to people researching history of file sharing, and has scholarly documentation in other languages. However, none of the filesharing articles I've looked to are really adequate targets. If we had a list of P2P file sharing applications, that would be the most obvious; as a distant second best, we could target Gnutella2#Clients. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chalst: There are actually very few content articles with links to FileScope. Most of them actually use Template:Gnutella2, which includes FileScope. Therefore after FileScope deletion (if we decide to delete it) it would be trivial to remove all dead links to FileScope. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Gnutella2#Clients - following the discussion on Dr.KBAHT's retracted !vote, that seems the most relevant place discussing the software. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Gnutella2#Clients.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2021 (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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

IPOPT

IPOPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:ROTM software product, tagged for improvement since June 2017. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Both references are primary sources. However, secondary independent sources are available, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=_ZtBDwAAQBAJ (ISBN 9783319583563) and https://books.google.com.co/books?id=Jm4eAQAAIAAJ (ISSN 0077-8923). There are several sources about GAMS and NLP covering the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2021 (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Mobilegov

Mobilegov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: An article whose text sets out the wares of a defunct company. I updated the article in 2018 to include the company's renaming and then demise. I then added a PROD notice with the rationale "This former company received some product coverage and listings in start-up awards but not the sustained and in-depth coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH" but I see the PROD was challenged. Looking again for sources (for both the Mobilegov and later Login People names and their main product name) I am finding mainly sporadic announcements from their lifespan which are trivial coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH. The most substantial source is the WebTime Medias posting about the firm's funding difficulties and closure - a thorough-enough piece which could contribute towards WP:NCORP but which does not in itself indicate any attainments which would be of encyclopaedic notability, so my opinion continues to be that this article fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 22 June 2021 (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 delete. Consensus is that the sourcing provided does not meet reliability or independence standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Diffractor (software)

Diffractor (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable software with no coverage in multiple reliable sources. References are either primary sources or websites with unclear reliability. nearlyevil665 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The first source is misleading because the subject is not freeware. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am actually the author of this software. I edited the article to be clear this software is Freemium (by adding the word freemium). It was free at the time the referenced article was written. How else can I help? User:Kernal-rom June 15, 2021

The most appropriate policy in this case is WP:NSOFT. As you can see, rather informal sources are allowed for open source freeware software. As this is not the case, I can only advice looking for better sources, like printed books, scholar articles. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: (creator of page) I have added couple of more references. Boreloaf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid it got worse now. Adding too many references to support a single claim is a bad practice, see WP:REFBOMB. The quality matters, not the quantity. For example, the FotoHits reference is not even an article. Only one of the reviews looks like a review. The others just describe how to use the software. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet notability criteria. Secondary sources with any significant coverage look like one man blogs and are promotional in tone. Sasquatch t|c 02:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - current sourcing is very poor from a reliability and independence standpoint, and searching suggests that there isn't much better available. Simply just non-notable software. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - is not notable. All sources are either just hosting content provided by the developer of the said software (GitHub, offcial site, forum listings), are not sufficiently in-depth or are not reliable (personal blogs). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cerulean Studios

Cerulean Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find evidence of independent notability for the company, separate from Trillian, which is notable. Redirect was reverted without comment, so we're here. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Trillian. I cant find anything in the way of notability. I'm not sure why the redirect was removed without an explanation unless it was by accident. Perhaps AirportExpert would like to weigh in?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, leaving the edit summary blank was accidental. Deleting the article should be fine however, but I think it would be appropriate to merge more components of the Cerulean Studios article with the Trillian page, to give further context behind the company that created the software. Trillian seems to be the only product of the company with any real notability, so its probably for the best that the two remain on the same page.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert

Thanks AirportExpert, but I'm slightly confused. That's what I had done, and exactly what my line of thinking was. If you agree, why did you change it back to its own page? Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I just wanted to be able to visualize the layout of the article independently, and transfer everything over to the redirect page, such as the infobox. The sandbox would've been a better use of that though I suppose, since I ended up not being able to finish and left the article only partially edited. Either way, lesson learned.--AirportExpert (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Strong delete. WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH are not even close here. The company itself is not notable. How did it stay on Wikipedia for 15 years? Asketbouncer (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not even remotely notable Dexxtrall (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2021 (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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. czar 05:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

EspoCRM

EspoCRM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 02:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 02:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment In Wikipedia, one can find few articles about open-source CRM software – e.g. Dolibarr, SuiteCRM, Group-Office and CiviCRM. Among the other worth-mentioning CRMs that are not featured are OroCRM, and vTiger.Harperpentusevich(talk) 02:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator seems to be blocked. Harperpentusevich (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2021 (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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Gervase Markham (programmer)

Gervase Markham (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is notable. He contributed to this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=G6ybAgAAQBAJ He is cited in the IEEE Xplore: ISBN 9-780-76952304-0. Actually, almost every other book about Mozilla mentions the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• That book mentions him exactly twice in passing, and not even on "real" pages (xv and xvi). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Being one of 37 people listed as having contributed hacks, writing or inspiration to a book and being cited once are both way short of any notability standard. And why, if he is covered by almost every other book about Mozilla, does Google Books only find that mention and a nine-word long quote from the subject in the apparently self-published "How To Build Massive Subscriber, Membership and Social Media Lists" by Marc Charles, which appears not to even rise to the level of having an ISBN? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Google books lists many mentions: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Gervase+Markham%22+Mozilla There are at least 6 matches on the first page. Anyway, not notable people are not cited by the IEEE. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I make it five mentions, and none goes beyond the simple fact that the subject worked for Mozilla. And if you want to get into citations, for which WP:PROF#C1 is the guideline, typically people who work in computer science need to have thousands of them before they are even considered to be possibly notable, not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You counted 5 mentions because the 6th book doesn't mention the subject and you assumed that the rest of the list doesn't either. If you keep scrolling you'll find more. If you really think that somebody needs thousands of citations in scientific journals, then why everybody knows Nicklaus Wirth, Richad Stallman, Donald Knuth? I know people who published dozens of computer science books and were never cited by the IEEE. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Because those people (if you spell their names correctly) do have thousands of citations to their work. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I found this through the academics deletion sorting list, but for this sort of subject, academic notability is not really an option (because scholarly writing is not what he did, so it's unsurprising that he doesn't meet any criterion of a notability guideline based on that). The only reasonable option is WP:GNG. But the only thing we have in the article that looks like a published source about Markham is the Dr. Dobbs interview. There are some editors who think interviews shouldn't count for notability at all — I tend to disagree, but we should only count them when they go into some depth about the subject, rather than focusing on other topics, and this one is the kind of interview that's primarily about some other topic. It's also only one source and we need multiple sources. The passing mentions in books discussed above also don't add anything to the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• very weak keep. borderline GNG, the main issue is that the article does not clearly state the subjects claim to notability (instead talks about ancestry and him being the youngest employee at a company which does not qualify for notability). After reading the article, I am still not clear what the author really *did* that was notable, his role at Bugzilla should be more clearly elaborated in the article. On the other hand, Contributing to a book is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. There is the German obituary on a probably notable site, there is the Dr Dobbs interview and the O'Reilly Open Source Award award which together make this a rather weak keep. --hroest 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• comment I also found this mention on LWN one of the leading open source outlets. I think overall there was enough coverage the substantiate the fact that he was an important contributor to Mozilla and Bugzilla and the community in general. --hroest

• I'm afraid I don't see how any of those qualifies as significant coverage in an independent reliable source. As regards the first, we seem to have many editors who don't even consider an obituary in The New York Times or The Daily Telegraph to be sufficient for notability, so one at a niche Linux web site would certainly not clear the bar. The Dr Dobbs interview is exactly that, an interview. I can't see any evidence that the award gets anywhere near WP:ANYBIO (once again, we even have people claiming that a knighthood is not enough). The LWN source just seems to consist of forum posts. Are you sure that you are not promoting systemic bias here in favour of people who work in the software industry, specifically those involved in open source projects? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources are not in depth enough to establish notability, and the subject does not appear to meet the criteria as an author, academic, etc. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article has been around since 2006 and isn't really any less notable than most of the other members of Category:Mozilla_people or Category:Mozilla_developers. In fact, Markham's article is linked to by more articles than some of them, so there's certainly an opportunity to add more content. The work he did regarding browser PKI governance alone was fairly notable (even if it isn't well-known). It's possible that notability guidelines might need to be written for programmers and technologists, because most of them can't quite be compared to academics or creative professionals. dma (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is heading towards a no-consensus close – further comments would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, per the conversation above, the sources cited are nothing more than passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2021 (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 draftify to Draft:Leadtools. Considering the nature of the sources, my take is that the "delete" side overall made a stronger case. Listing out the tools and software used to produce results in an academic paper is standard practice, and it sets a very low bar for notability if citation in a journal is all that is needed. Nonetheless, there were also some paper resources (Charlotte Observer) that were offered up which are probably more substantial but that cover the main product, "Leadtools", rather than the company. As such, the compromise suggestion of bringing this to draft space for further revision and focus on the main product is the outcome that fulfills the largest number of concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

LEAD Technologies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/LEAD Technologies
• Articles for deletion/LEAD Technologies (2nd nomination)

LEAD Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Zero of the references provide in-depth, independent coverage of the company. [Note, I did not access the Chinese Journal of Medical Physics reference] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom a Non notable company which lacks indepth coverage. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The company has multiple patents, there are journal articles and reports that offer in-depth coverage, they work with the Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Perhaps the article could be improved but it is an established company with important contributions and should not be deleted.Techgirl49 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Techgirl49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  @Techgirl49: Having the government as a customer doesn't make a company notable. As WP:PATENTS says, noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep While the nomination appears to have looked at the references and claim zero in depth coverage of the company there is insufficient evidence the nom. examined the FedBizOps 15 April 2009 carefully. While this covers only a company product in detail that is a significant aspect of a company. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Djm-leighpark: In what way do you think this provides in-depth coverage? It is an announcement of Veterans Affairs buying LEAD Technologies' PACS solution. See WP:ROUTINE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  The article as currently written provides both for the LEAD Technologies company and the LEADTOOLS brand via LEADTOOLS, the latter being of more notability which is sustained as easier evidenced by links in books link above, noting InfoWorld 1 May 1995 for example. The nom. may be in pursuit of Techgirl49, having Draft:LEADTOOLS declined at AfC 3 June. Give sock work at LEADTOOLS their is cause for concern. But under it all I see a software brand that has sustained long term notability. I have used {{uw-coi}} directly asked Techgirl49 if she has a conflict of Interest with Lead Technologies and making her aware of Wikipedia declaration requirements if she has. I AGF that could be either way, but its sensible to directly ask the question. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Djm-leighpark: I think there might be paid editing or at least COI but I have no evidence and have chosen to AGF. That isn't the reason for my nomination. While the company has been around a long time, and the InfoWorld article brought back fond memories as I used the API in VB way back in 1995, WP:ITSOLD doesn't cut it. Per WP:PRODUCTREV, product reviews can help establish notability of a product, and InfoWorld is an independent, reliable source. It would take more though, to show that either that specific product meets WP:NPRODUCT or the company meets WP:NCORP. I would want to see a book, or chapter in a book, written about the company, or secondary coverage in a national newspaper, or a paper in a scientific journal, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Curb Safe Charmer: I don't think I gave too much emphasis for the patents, I was just saying that they have them. I would disagree and think that having the government as a customer does make a company notable or at least validates their existence. I don't know what AGF means? I see you used their tools as far back as 1995! I use their tools as well and found them on a list when I googled and that led me down this rabbit hole. You used their tools over 25 years ago so you know they are legit and there are articles in journals about them. You clearly know all the rules and maybe I don't, but I have to ask if deleting this page would improve the knowledge base in Wikipedia or deteriorate it. And I believe the answer is that it would deteriorate. Request to improve it, certainly, But delete it? I still say no. Techgirl49 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hmmm .... One can read many things but I notice WP:BADGER to Bludgeon the process here, even extending to user talk pages. I am minded WP:NPRODUCT is satisfied by LEADTOOLS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. The coverage here is trivial and mostly press releases, and lacks the independence necessary to establish notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep In order to have its own page, the company qualified as notable before now, and per Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not temporary, nor does the subject need to have ongoing coverage to still be considered notable. Plus, current market (e.g. PDF SDK, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coil and Optical Character Recognition) research reports include the company and its product in their studies with the likes of other notable companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, IBM), and current journal articles still reference and study the company and its product. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consideration of the sources provided by Heartmusic678.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Aside from the lack of sourcing in the article, I couldn't find anything else on a search of mine. Fails WP:NCORP.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It took some time digging to come to this opinion, but this is what I found. 1) Several of the references in the article seem to show notability. E.g., The Study of Medical Image Communication of DICOM Standard Based on LEADTOOLS - Chinese Journal of Medical Physics (1 ed.). 2007 and Chang, Chin-Liang (1997). Fuzzy-logic-based programming. Advances in Fuzzy Systems. 15. Singapore: World Scientific. 2) I found some additional references to the company and/or its software. E.g., Joseph M Hilbe (2007) ePrint 5 Professional Conversion Utility, The American Statistician, 61:2, 179-180, DOI: 10.1198/000313007X193490 3) The organization is notable and has had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities as shown by the number of references with studies found in Google Scholar. While on the surface it may seem that the reference of the organization or software in these scholarly articles is trivial, it is not. The results of these studies are directly dependent upon the technology used for the study. 4) Because the references are from an international audience further shows notability. 5) Noticing the company is based in Charlotte, NC, I searched the local major newspaper and found a couple articles. Unfortunately, Google newspaper search seems biased to recent events, and I was not able to find the same articles that I did when searching the newspaper's archive directly. Articles of notability, but gated: Charlotte Observer, November 16, 1992, pg. 36 and Charlotte Observer, February 10, 2011, pg. A8 Trusty route (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment None of the reasons including the sources provided by Trusty route above have anything to do with the actual criteria used to establish notability. The guideline is WP:NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also, saying that the organization is notable because it had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities is synthesis, none of those scholarly articles says that. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, per review of available sources, including presented at this AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep or move to LEAD Tools. The papers found and sources demonstrate notability of the technology. I didn't see a LEAD Tools page, so maybe that's a solution? FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete There is no independent coverage available. It fails GNG and NCORP, misses CORPDEPTH and may have COI issues too. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Pipsally (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep addtl citations, content could be added to expand page but not necessary. Active since 2011 with updates over the years. The citations currently on the page do meet the minimum requirements for WP:SIGCOV MadMadder (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment For four of the editors that have !voted 'keep', this is the first and only deletion discussion that they have participated in. Read into that what you will. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Curb Safe Charmer you should be looking at sources and notability such as the journal articles, book coverage and reports as well as the long term notability of the company/products. As Djm-leighpark pointed out, there seems to be WP:BADGER to Bludgeon going on here. MadMadder (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Current research reports do include the company and its products. Insufficient evidence that this page should be deleted 75.164.80.135 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — 75.164.80.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment For those Keep !voters that believe that there are papers and sources which demonstrate notability, please post the best two of three links below for analysis. Be aware, each reference must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. If you can find two references that meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move to "Leadtools". I do not see significant coverage of the company anywhere, but sources like this (and those compiled above by talk) indicate to me that the product is being discussed. Searching for "Leadtools" brings up a few more sources like this from SD Times; arguably still sparse but enough imo. If not move, then delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the move to Leadtools as mentioned above. Happy to change my vote officially if that matters. Or draft up a page if that is helpful, I am not sure how this process would work. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Leadtools page. I changed my vote because the toolkit is a significant part of research per articles (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56224-7_14; [1]; [2]) mentioned in this discussion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Draft:Leadtools for now. I came here with the intent of closing this discussion, and was inclined to close as delete, discounting the !votes of low-participation editors coming into this discussion. Empirically, the 1992 Charlotte Observer piece is promising (though just local reporting at that time), and Leadtools gets decent numbers of Google Books and Google News hits, giving me the impression that this is a potentially notable topic. However, these are not in the article at this time, so I think it needs to go to draft to see if there is depth to that content. I would suggest that if moved to draft, some consensus-based process be required before restoring to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Thanks for that suggestion. As nominator, I would support draftification to a title about the company's main product, rather than about the company. I am unconvinced by any arguments put forward by others about the notability of the company and I think the longstanding editors that have participated in the AfD agree. The coverage that does exist, as you say, is about the product. Therefore the article would need to be re-worked in draft space to change its focus. The other reason for draftification is that there has been a long history of undisclosed paid editing on this article, right from its creation, and I believe that continues today. I believe there is a sophisticated paid sockfarm in operation here and we await the outcome of that investigation. COI is a valid reason for draftification. In the move to draft space the history, two AfDs and notes re paid editing will accompany it so extra scrutiny will be required by any AfC reviewer minded to accept the reworked article into mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Given that comment and my participation in this AFD I checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heartmusic678 and at least note I am not mentioned there. I object draftication but accept I need to take account of any decision here. I do not accept going via AfC, while I respect their role I have my reasons, but will accept a DRV review if required. I do not have nor seek WP:AUTOCONFIRM rights so any re-entry by me has to go via NPP. I never like to TNT because any history of COI editing is made invisible, and the job of marketing is in general to dress pig rear output as juicy sausages. Instead I prefer to WP:STUBIFY and rebuild, per Rosemay Leith, though accept I may have dishonoured a genuine NEWBIE in going too far, @BD2412 may present Leith to DRV if necessary. If their is a professional sock farm in use they might have the nous to back off if it get draftified, unless their being paid by LEADTOOLS opposition. Please note the brand is LEADTOOLS (in caps) as far as I am aware. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand most of the comments above. But it sounds like there is generally support for a LEADTOOLS page or draft which is what I voted for. Did I do something incorrect in my voting here? Is there something I can do better? I also commented on the investigation listed above. Thank you! FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Sandstein 06:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Finco Services Inc

Finco Services Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The article is pretty vacuous promo blurb (we don't need to know board membership, patent applications, etc.!) and the sources are all primary. That said, there are a couple of articles in WSJ 1 2, the latter of which says the company has 2M customers, so might be more noteworthy than appears at first. There could be more sources to be found by searching with the trading name 'Current', but that's quite a tricky search term, of course. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If this article survives the AfD, it should be moved to 'Finco Services' without the 'Inc', per WP:NCCORP. Or perhaps it should be moved to 'Current (bank)' or some such instead? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The "in the news" section of company's website shows plenty of coverage. Some articles are just mentions, but they have been the main focus of several CNBC and WSJ articles. JBchrch talk 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Wall Street Journal, Current Joins Mobile-Banking Boom With $131 Million Tiger Global-Led Round, [3]]; 2. CNBC, Digital bank Current sees ‘insane’ growth during pandemic [4]; 3. CNBC Digital bank Current triples valuation in five months to $2.2 billion after Andreessen takes stake [5] Middleground1 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal is an announcement/PR about the company hence failed WP:ORGIND. And the other two references from CNBC are also the announcement/PR, failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Author's comments and questions

Thank you sincerely for starting this discussion. A couple comments on the above comments, and this is not to at all to be contentious – more of a learning op for me and explanation of what was going on in my head.

• I guess my first question is how this might not be neutral. I agree with the comment that listing its board members is dubious. I was on the fence. Ultimately, I decided that if the place is privately held and privately funded, and it’s also being run by venture capitalists, a researcher might want to know that. (Full disclosure – I did not research the venture cap firms, it just seemed like the right call to back up the privately funded thing).
• As for sources, I was careful to check that the third-party sources weren’t just cribbing from the company’s own press releases. I think that Dunn and Bradstreet, CrunchBase, Bloomberg, the United States Patent Office and the Security and Exchange Commission are credible sources. As for Yahoo! Finance and Financial Letter – well, perhaps I should have investigated their credibility, but I seem to see them used a lot around Wikipedia.
• As for moving it to a page that doesn’t have the “Inc” – all for that. Looking around the web, I couldn’t even get verification as to whether there was a period after the “c” … Moving it to “Current (bank)” is the best idea, but I didn’t think that a subsidiary (in this case Current) could have a page when a parent company (in this case Finco) doesn’t.
• As for patents, I’d be up for removing it. My reason for including it was twofold: first, this company is apparently among the emerging group of “fintech” organizations, which to my understanding are a combination of financial services and software development -- and there should be a mention of how they are in the software arena; second, their patent pending is something I’ve never heard of before – individuals being able to make money from selling their personal data just as corporations have been selling for eons without giving customers a cut. I’ve heard debates about that, but never stumbled upon a patent application for something that does just that. So, it seemed valuable. Sidebar: it's really not out of the ordinary to mention the assets of a financial institution, including intellectual property.

Well, I didn’t set out to do a promo, I can really attest to that with complete honesty. Two days ago, I saw an ad for them on the NYC Subway and wondered who they were, looked them up on Wikipedia, and they weren’t here, and then I saw online that they have millions of users and half a billion dollars in capital. So, I figured I should investigate further and give them an article here. I have no idea if they are a credible (as in good or bad) organization, but they seem notable.

Should you choose to delete, that’s fine. If you don’t, I’ll continue working on it. But either way, please, if you will, let me know where the thinking I wrote out above was flawed. Maybe the article is horrible, but I want to learn where my decisions and logic was off. I want to contribute more here, and rely on feedback. Middleground1 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Per WP:PATENTS the patents can be used as a RS in the context of the invention they describe. They don't support the notability of the owner. CrunchBase is not a RS. Anybody can register a CB profile and publish unverified information. I recommend removing CB and adding TechCrunch [6] Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means: nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc, there must be independent opinion/analysis etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either advertorial "profile" pieces which rely on interviews and information provided by the company or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. has WSJ coverage here. You can't get any bigger coverage than WSJ. Peter303x (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • We are also required to look at the content and NCORP guidelines requires that it meets certain criteria. An article that relies entirely on an announcement of funding and a short interview with Mr. Sopp and without providing any independent analysis/opinion fails to establish notability, regardless of which publication it features in. Every sentence in that article is attributed to either the company or to Mr. Sopp therefore it fails WP:ORGIND specifically. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:08, 19 June 2021 (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.