This reads to me like a promotional piece masquerading as an article. Sources are generally limited to short mentions or reviews (neither of which are reliable with significant coverage), without a unambiguous neutral claim to notability, and I can't find any potential sources not of the type "list of best/new apps for note taking", for example. Complex/Rational14:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barabashenjatko I put an under construction template at the top of the article itself, to let editors know it is still a work in progress. Hopefully, this will put the brakes on the AFD issue until you are finished with your work. I was going to suggest you do the work in your sandbox, but I see you're way ahead of me on that. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barabashenjatko the subject matter is beyond my area of knowledge, so I can't be helpful there. However, ComplexRational who nominated this for deletion is also an administrator on Wikipedia. Perhaps they could guide you the right direction in finishing this article.— Maile (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not an expert on the subject matter, but I can tell you that many of the sources currently present in the article do not demonstrate that this software is notable. Namely, they only contain short mentions of the subject and are primarily lists and product reviews subject to the discretion of the publisher. In contrast, the types of sources demonstrating notability typically include books or dedicated reviews from independent publishers; these then usually exclude short opinion pieces (not detailed), blogs (usually considered unreliable), or the company's webpage (not independent). This essay on rough notability standards for software goes into greater detail.
Nonetheless, this source which you recently added might be usable for notability purposes, as PC world is a widely-known publication. If you can find multiple similar sources, perhaps notability could be demonstrated; I couldn't find much outside of short customer reviews in a quick search, though again, perhaps someone more knowledgeable about publications in this field would know better, especially regarding foreign-language sources.
In addition, text such as On medium.com you can find 33 interesting articles about xTiles, published by various authors. and In September 2022 Jessica Tan of ContentGrip publishes 19 awesome apps for freelance writers in 2022, xTiles in fourth place. comes across as promotional. Wikipedia articles should aim to describe a subject neutrally, i.e., without suggesting that the author is biased or trying to sell a product. This means that language such as "you", "interesting", "awesome", should be cut out, leaving behind a straightforward description of the facts.
I realize this is a lot to digest, and would be happy to answer more specific questions. The main takeaway is that you need several reputable sources describing this app in detail to demonstrate that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. Complex/Rational13:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
