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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FCX file compression

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked very hard for references and found none. Ping me if someone finds something. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've drawn a blank re: independent sources as well. (Searched Google Books and Scholar.) Preimage (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks RSes to support inclusion. If there were sources demonstrating notability, that would be a different story but everyone seems to be having a hard time finding sources to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (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 14:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xait

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

After removing press releases and SYNTH, there's really not much here. Checking for sources doesn't show me anything that meets WP:NCORP, although it's possible there are some non-English sources that I didn't find in my search. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Norwegian National Library's newspaper archives have 84 results for "Xait" after 2000 [1]. Some are clearly bad OCR artifacts, but some are about this company. Will analyze tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 21:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, they are mostly bad OCR artifacts. Some passing mentions (e.g. job listings, or a guy who works there playing in a band) too. Delete. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toadspike's source analysis. Notability is not established either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to XB Browser. ✗plicit 14:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XB Machine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to xB Browser. It has been discussed mostly in connection to the xB Browser project [2][3][4]. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much coverage about the machine itself. Redirect xB browser is an ok alternative too.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough. It didn't have enough coverage in the 2000s and doesn't have enough now. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an anonymous editor using an Orange España IP address removed refs before this AfD was initiated.^diff MarioGom subsequently restored them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure any of them are reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Clenpr (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants evaluate refs. It’s always inappropriate to delete any refs just before an AfD. Another editor thought the same thing and reverted those deletions. Editors are always sizing up their peers for trustworthiness and credibility. This type of thing doesn’t help. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your assessment for those references? Are them reliable sources? Clenpr (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided 3 sources above, which are way enough for a redirect. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:34, 25 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to VHDL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VHDL-VITAL

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VHDL. MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Small part of VHDL, so redirect to there.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VHDL: Not enough notability to warrant it's own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I just added 5 refs which I found using the Google Scholar and Google Books links at the top of this AfD. 30 seconds for each search. There's more out there. This is so frustrating - see WP:BEFORE. Incorrectly saying this article fails WP:GNG and taking it to AFD ties up people's time. (I subsequently spent 20 minutes on the article and this AFD). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz,@Itzcuauhtli11,@MarioGom - FYI, I just added 5 refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the added sources demonstrate reliable, significant, secondary coverage. Two are white papers by Vreeland and appear to be self-published. The book "VHDL for logic synthesis" mentions vital 3 times and doesn't seem to go into depth. The IEEE article from 1995 reads as primary to me. I generally do like the source from 2017 for meeting criteria to determine GNG, but with only 3 citations it's very hard for me to determine if this topic is significant or just of niche interest to academics. I still think a redirect is the best option here

All of that aside, I agree the frequent AFDs from Clenpr that are only minutes apart are annoying and make it seem as though WP:BEFORE is being ignored and it is a drain on other editors. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clenpr is also ignoring WP:ATDs in these nominations. I suggested this redirect option in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of many VHDL-related standards, mentioned in VHDL. There's no point in a single sentence article per WP:NOPAGE, and VHDL article is a better place to expand on the topic. Without prejudice of anyone splitting VHDL-VITAL if it ever becomes necessary. MarioGom (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Its the standard nomenclature for a specific VHDL programming model and there many many of them. I don't think it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 13 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to OpenVMS#Database management. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Application Control Management System

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single WP:RS found even for a redirect Clenpr (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This can easily be redirected to OpenVMS as it appears to be core software specifically for that OS. Not sure if this title is too generic for a simple redirect (i.e. if there are other "application control management systems" out there. If there are others, then this may need to be a disambiguation page instead. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenVMS#Database management where it's already mentioned. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenVMS#Database management. --MarioGom (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenVMS#Database management as I suggested in my deprod rationale. Another trout slap for Clenpr this time for ignoring WP:ATDs. ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2025 (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!} 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House (operating system)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single WP:RS found even for a redirect Clenpr (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-primary sources found. Likely to cause confusion if redirected due to existence of various "smart home" operating system so deletion seems better than a redirect. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. Not SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WPWGNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / question - multiple papers on this OS presented at conferences they're by parties associated with its development. I've added them to the article. Can someone tell me if conference papers peer-reviewed? If so, I'm inclined to keep. If not, I'm inclined to delete. One of the papers is cited 51 times; I only looked at a sample but I saw passing mentions typically of a paragraph. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. B.: If they are leading academics in that subject (easy to verify by published work, monographs for example ) or known as established leaders (easy to verify by prior publishing history) in that subject meeting in conference, then any papers they produce will be WP:SECONDARY coverage. However, lots of folk go to conferences and produce papers that are rank and are generally primary and/or useless. A citation count of 51 is far too low in any instance to count. Passing mentions are just that. They don't count for anything. There is no depth to them. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Haskell#Notable_applications as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Eclipse Modeling Framework. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMT (Eclipse)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single WP:RS found even for a redirect Clenpr (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eclipse Modeling Framework: As per WP:ATD. Serves in a search. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eclipse Modeling Framework. No brainer. MarioGom (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's several in Google Books and Google Scholar mentions like [5]. A redirection does not require proving notability for a standalone article, that's the point. Please, stop this non-sense. If you did WP:BEFORE, you are perfectly aware that this redirection/merge is verifiable. MarioGom (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect easy redirect to the larger project.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eclipse Modeling Framework I agree with this as a logical move.Villkomoses (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2025 (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. Consensus for delete strengthened following relist with concurrence from earlier participant. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic broker

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a single WP:RS found even for a redirect Clenpr (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Semantic Web. There's a good number of academic sources using the concept in relation to Semantic Web technologies. MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Agree with MarioGom, this is an easy redirect to Semantic Web.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom, given the recent delete !vote below, would you be able to share any of these sources? Or do you agree that a delete would be fine? -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be fine. I saw a few results in Google Scholar back then, but really didn't took enough time to verify if they where circular. MarioGom (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge wth Semantic mapper as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a candidate to merge with Semantic Web too. Sub-concept, wholly unsourced. MarioGom (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different suggested target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced dictionary entry that has been tagged since December 2009 as not having any sources. I DO NOT like the wording as just being an "easy redirect" without sourcing. This is not supported by any policy, guideline, or even essay. All I could find, that was not circular, was semantic broker, Cognitive Applications and Semantic Brokers, and Semantic mapper explained. The last one indicates that "A semantic mapper is an essential component of a semantic broker and one tool that is enabled by the Semantic Web technologies". This means if there is a Redirect (as ATD per MarioGom and my secondary choice), or if some encyclopedia context could be added from the above sources, a "Merge", it is more probable to be to Semantic web. "Delete", "Merge", or "Redirect", are indicative that an article should not have a stand alone page. No one will likely contest a closer chosen target from the suggestions. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, I just tagged MarioGom above, but then I had a look at the article and its history. There's no need for an ATD here; we're losing basically nothing in terms of both content and page history. I'm not convinced that a redirect will be terribly helpful for anyone looking for this, either. Better to just let people get a search result isntead of wordlessly sending them somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2025 (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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Smalltalk

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete lack of independent coverage. I have only found in-house productions, republishings of those in blogs, and passing mentions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC) see below --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Smalltalk. While there's probably not enough sources to make it notable, there are enough academic sources found in Google Scholar to grant it a mention in the Smalltalk article (there's already one) and a redirect. MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Sure, fair enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect Agree with MarioGom --- has some academic mentions but not enough for its own article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - found lots of stuff using the Google Books and Google Scholar links at the top of this page, including this book, The Dolphin Smalltalk Companion. I've added several useful refs (all are good but some white papers don't contribute to notability). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That book is has a valid publisher, and some of the papers do indeed go sufficiently beyond passing mentions to constitute good sources. It's not a "speedy keep" (that is not a synonym for "I emphatically think so"), but I retract my opposition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, my "speedy keep" had more to do with my frustration the obvious lack of a WP:BEFORE. I spent all of 60 seconds to turn up a plethora of potential refs. This sort of nomination wastes editors' time that's better spent on other stuff. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per established convention, software usually gets an article if its under activie development and this is Smalltalk. I think it is more than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by A. B. and a trout slap for Clenpr. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sigcov found by A. B. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2025 (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 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Command verb

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is wide usage of this term in human-computer interaction, but not so much coverage specifically about it. Also used in linguistics and religion, apparently, so there's no really good redirect target. MarioGom (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxylabs

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

Poor sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Noting that some review articles exist about Oxylabs, although they appear to contain multiple affiliate links. The only piece of significant coverage I'm seeing about the company exists in the form of this TechRadar article about a lawsuit.^[1] 30Four (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No RS, no SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It is among the most notable residential proxy providers, along with Luminati. There's quite some technical discussion and brief company description in a book [6] published by O'Reilly Media, which is one of the top publishers in its category. There's also mentions in a lot of papers like [7] or [8], including significant technical discussion involving independent research of its network [9]. Also an in-depth review at PCMag [10]. And the source mentioned in the nomination. In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH, it seems a bit borderline though. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no majr coverage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Every company cannot have their own page, they need to show that they are notable outside of just being a company. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.techradar.com/news/judge-orders-mediation-after-jury-orders-oxylabs-to-pay-dollar75m-in-latest-episode-of-proxy-wars

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 Microsoft 365 applications and services. ✗plicit 14:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft InterConnect

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was a book written about it in Japanese ^{(translation)}. Otherwise I'm finding nothing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Microsoft 365 applications and services. This is a discontinued product that was marketed only in Japan, so mostly unknown outside the country. It does not seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT, but it can be assumed to meet the inclusion criteria for the product list. MarioGom (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Microsoft 365 applications and services per MarioGom and my own search above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:51, 10 May 2025 (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.

JOSSO

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have added 2 refs. One is a journal article and the other is a book chapter however the book is published by IGI Global which has a poor reputation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of single sign-on implementations where it is already mentioned. I'm unable to assess the new sources from A. B. and have not been able to find any of my own. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep - I am unable to assess the new sources but WP:AGF on the part of these editors. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (weak). There's definitely a lot of junky articles that come up in a gscholar search, but some also seem to be legit, like this springer case study. I think it just about establishes notability, but wouldn't be opposed to a redirection/merger Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CryptLoad

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search didn't turn up anything. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost an exact copy of an AfD I just voted on. Programs need more RSes to justify inclusion or we would have a page for every program. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCrypt

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching didn't turn up anything for this to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:N. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search turned up only passing mentions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There needs to be more sources provided to show that this is notable. Every random program should not get its own article under our current framework. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of disk encryption software where it is listed. WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reliable source for this? We will need to remove then entry in that article if unreferenced. Clenpr (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails GNG. Delete as per nomination.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2025 (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. This discussion saw no analysis of the largely inaccessible sources and had no strong arguments for or against deletion. I strongly recommend attempting to verify the offline sources before renominating to avoid a repeat of this discussion. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Arts Sandbox

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenpr:, care to provide a rationale why the sources cited in the article do not meet WP:GNG? In particular, the Brazilian Symposium on Games and Digital Entertainment, PC Gaming Magazine, and PC Format Magazine sources? ~ A412 ^talk! 05:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find said issues (Total PC Gaming Magazine, February 2009;

PC Format Magazine, issue 232, November 2009)? IgelRM (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has more footnotes demonstrating notability than actual content, so it doesn't mandate a deletion yet would barely count as a weak keep. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is currently a case of WP:OFFLINE where the article's supporting information isn't accessible enough to make a call, but on the available citations, it's not very impressive. The Symposium paper is the only secondary significant coverage I can see - the others are primary sources. Again, only on the merit of available sourcing, which would likely change would lean delete absent a search for other sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2025 (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. Without socks, we have unanimous consensus for deletion; the sock keep !votes basically also argue for deletion, in their own way. asilvering (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting Controller

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

None of the references establish notability. I see only a few relevant hits on Google (The company name is very generic, though.): [11][12][13][14] and similar. All of them seemingly fail all criteria of WP:SIRS. This PDF could possibly have some SIRS coverage on the product, but I think that that is too little to establish notability. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would like to respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Hosting Controller is a long-standing and recognized name in automating service provisioning, user management, billing and metering for various on-premises and Cloud services including web hosting, Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, Azure and Microsoft CSP program, with over two decades of history and global usage. While the company name may appear generic, the product and brand "Hosting Controller" have a distinct and established presence, especially within the Windows hosting and hybrid cloud automation space.

The following points support notability:

External Review:

There are third-party sources, including [industry articles, hosting review platforms, and integration announcements] that cover Hosting Controller’s product offerings, partnerships, and impact in the hosting industry. These sources include:

Articles in web hosting review platforms.

Mentions and integrations with Microsoft Exchange, Hyper-V, and other enterprise systems.

Inclusion in hosting control panel comparisons and industry whitepapers.

Longevity and Industry Use:

Hosting Controller has been active since at least 1999, with a consistent product line evolving with market demands—from shared hosting control panels to hybrid cloud automation solutions.

Product Uniqueness:

Its support for hybrid environments (Windows/Linux/cloud) and integration with platforms like Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, and Office 365 sets it apart from more common cPanel-style products.

Potential Sources:

The company documentation (e.g., whitepapers, PDFs) may not seem like SIRS at first glance, but many are cited or used by third parties in evaluations, comparisons, or implementation case studies. I’m happy to help surface more third-party mentions if needed.

Given the depth of its niche, industry presence, and long-term use, I believe Hosting Controller meets the criteria for notability and request that the article be improved rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the URLs you have found. I haven't found anything except the said PDF document. Janhrach (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. As requested, I am sharing specific third-party and platform references that demonstrate Hosting Controller's notability and industry relevance:

In-depth third-party coverage:

▶"Hosting Controller Delivers a Hybrid Automation Solution for Service Providers" – HostingAdvice.com (2021)

This is a professionally written and independently published piece that provides a detailed overview of Hosting Controller’s features, hybrid automation value, and market differentiation. It qualifies as a secondary source under WP:SIRS.

Industry presence on major platforms:

▶ AWS Marketplace Profile

▶ Microsoft Azure Marketplace Listing

These are not news articles per se, but they establish Hosting Controller’s integration and credibility within top-tier enterprise ecosystems. Inclusion on these platforms requires vetting and compliance, reflecting notability in its niche.

Given this, I respectfully request that the article be retained and improved, rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the latter two sources, they are neither secondary, nor independent from the subject. As for HostingAdvice, their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia, because someone has spammed links to the website, which is a good indicator that they publish paid-for content. Also, the author of the article you mentioned seemingly only publishes promotional articles. Janhrach (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Notability and Independent Coverage

Hosting Controller has been profiled by a well-established industry publication, HostingAdvice.com, in the article “Hosting Controller Delivers a Hybrid Automation Solution for Service Providers,” which provides an in-depth, independently written overview of its features, market positioning, and hybrid cloud value proposition

HostingAdvice.com

.

Integration in Major Enterprise Ecosystems

The product’s listing on the AWS Marketplace underscores its enterprise credibility—participation in AWS Marketplace requires rigorous vendor vetting and demonstrates real‐world use by customers across Amazon’s ecosystem

Amazon Web Services, Inc.

.

Likewise, Hosting Controller is available on the Microsoft Azure Marketplace, reflecting its validation as a turnkey control-panel solution for Azure virtual machines and confirming its alignment with Microsoft’s partner quality standards

Azure Marketplace

.

Longevity and Global Adoption

The software has been in continuous development since 1999, evolving from a Windows-only control panel to a full hybrid-cloud automation suite used by over 5,000 organizations in 125 countries

HostingAdvice.com

.

This two-decade track record evidences sustained industry relevance and distinguishes it from ephemeral or trivial products

Wikipedia

.

Unique Feature Set and Industry Impact

Compared to generic cPanel-style offerings, Hosting Controller’s hybrid multi-cloud support (Windows/Linux, on-premises and public clouds) and deep integrations with Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, and Office 365 set it apart in the Windows hosting and CSP market

hostingcontroller.com

.

Independent analyses on hosting review platforms and whitepapers routinely include Hosting Controller in their comparisons of enterprise control panels, further demonstrating its recognized niche impact

Wikipedia

.

Conclusion and Request for Improvement

Given its significant third-party coverage, enterprise-scale integrations, and longstanding market presence, Hosting Controller clearly meets WP:SIRS and WP:GNG criteria for notability. Rather than deletion, the article should be retained and expanded with these reliable sources to improve its coverage and verifiability. Casaidealeriparazioni (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. This is spam, standard BEFORE shows nothing meeting SIRS, there's nothing in ProQuest or Gale either, and honestly what exists is so far from the bar I can't believe the socks expected anyone to take them seriously. Even if there were such sources, this would still be spam, so blow it up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Article has mostly primary sources and I didn't find any more. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To engage participation for a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe this article should be retained. Hosting Controller is featured and independently reviewed on platforms like SoftwareWorld, SourceForge,Capterra ,monovm and oxtrys — all of which recognize it as a credible cloud and hosting control panel. These third-party sources establish notability and show real-world usage beyond just primary claims. AhmadMasood321 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)— AhmadMasood321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I searched for "hosting controller" "Syed Hashmi" (the company CEO) to get beyond the generic name results, and still nothing independent and reliable shows up. Fails WP:NCORP. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided by the socks provide WP:SIGCOV let alone WP:SIRS. This is WP:PROMO spam thats got to go. Jumpytoo Talk 23:15, 25 May 2025 (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 merge‎ to Central Bank of Egypt. The rough consensus here is that the sourcing is not strong enough to justify a standalone article. Subsequent discussion of where the redirect should point or if a DAB is necessary can happen on the talk page or at WP:RfD – I will note that in addition to the Philippine service mentioned by Alpha3031, there also seems to be an Indonesian company of this name. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay

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

The app is not notable by its own, and it does not have enough reliable third party sources with journalistic significant not just press-released coverage. All the sources within the page and the ones I managed to find BEFORE are only event-based - Egypt's central bank launched... Norlk (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep InstaPay is a nationally significant app in Egypt, launched under the Egyptian Central Bank's strategy for digital payments. It is widely adopted and integrated into government and private banking systems. many sources talked about it such as her bankygate.com and enterprise.news and ahram.org.eg Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article subject could be mentioned in the article about the Central Bank of Egypt and this article redirected there as an alternative to deletion. Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable product in the financial world, with notability backed up by reliable sourcing.Simxaraba (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources reporting on it, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing that addresses the subject directly and in detail, with their own independent analysis. The WP:ORGTRIV announcements we see would fail multiple criteria out of WP:SIRS, and all four of those criteria must be met for any individual source to contribute to ORG/PRODUCT notability. I am also hesitant to recommend a redirect as the product shares a name with the Philippines version of the same thing (and also a payday lender), though I would not be entirely opposed if that does end up being the result. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Central Bank of Egypt, since that bank created this app. ApexParagon (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2025 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple emoji

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

I don't see any Sigcov per BEFORE, only the ref #6 source and the weak source like Bustle, thus failing notability. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could perhaps be a brief mention in an emoji article, but most of what i find is trivia [15] or random mentions online. I don't see enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~How about the ref #6, isn't it a full article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: and what is there (including ref 6) can be incorporated into other articles, eg ref 6 is more about the symbolism of pineapples and could be added to the article on pineapple. --hroest 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major author of the article: Source analysis has not been properly conducted. The comment that Bustle is "weak" is not substantiated by why this would be so. The article is equivalent of around 16 Column inches devoted to this subject alone. There was not any attempt to address dictionary.com which is a solid source, used in hundreds of articles. Even the nom seems to admit that source #6, at Jane Austen Society of North America, is a full article about this subject, and the presence of "emoji" in the article title tells us that it is not about the fruit, but the symbol. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary as a source is not a secondary and would not count to notability. Ref #6 is mixed since it also talked about the pineapple itself, not only the emoji. Bustle is weak when you check that source since the article is mentioning all the fruits, not only pineapple emoji (You really thought because of the headline title). When I checked the body of the article, it only says about pineapple emoji is "especially when you can post a bunch of pineapple emojis to your Snapchat story to get people scratching their heads instead." Yeah, Bustle and ref#6 is not enough, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's wide academic coverage of the Pineapple emoji use in Jane Austen adaptations [16][17][18][19][20][21]. There's brief coverage about its use as a synonym for weed. I would also support a merge to a section Pineapple#Symbolism if someone was up to write it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found something else it is notable for and put it on the page. Specifically, that it is a symbol used by swingers to indicate to other swingers that they are open to that activity. Additionally, there are sources that bolster this use like Cosmopolitan^[1] and The Telegraph.^[2] Therefore, I think at this point it meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and warrants inclusion. I am sure there are other sources that support the swinger notion, I just did a quick look. Apparently that is its most popular usage. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources has zero mention about Pineapple emoji. You might did some "quick look", but you didn't checked properly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to fix that for redirect 2607:FEA8:3360:7600:CF58:1498:256F:1F37 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the 3 above Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is not a vote young guy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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 03:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Designs PLC

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

Non-notable company. Coverage is routine and WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company brochure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2025 (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!} 04:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fintilect

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

Non-notable software company. Routine coverage like M&As, renaming, investments, are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. UPE history is another issue. Gheus (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after article rescue work (again). Any recent UPE work (if that's what it was) had already been reverted by the nominator. Restore former material of historical interest, e.g. OS/2 software as highlighted in the previous AFD. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found anything outside of primary sources and routine business announcements. Many sources are "fintech" focused and I tend to view such sources with the same skepticism as crypto focused sites. I haven't found much in the way of notability for the previous iterations of the company either. The sources on the historic article don't seem to meet reliability or notability requirements either. The old page seems like a relic of a more lenient era of wikipedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not notable and does not have wide coverage in RS. Reads like a promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom: Absolutely promotional. Check this out: Fintilect is a group of fintech companies. Enter the source (UK FinTech) "...cementing its position as one of the largest global digital banking software providers". Not bragging are we? -- Otr500 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 27 May 2025 (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. per keep argumens, newly added sigcov, WP HEY (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GR8 Tech

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

Non-notable gambling company, sourced mostly with WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Technology, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in reality that is a notable and big firm in its gambling field with a shady past and interesting details. The notability derives from the sourcing in gambling related newspapers online, and also from the sanctioned parimatch/tech(previous name changed to avoid sanctions and ties with suspicious organisations). Such sigcov link tell a lot about shadow activities [22], here [23] and others. The page should be rebalanced though. Norlk (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP BEFORE. the company rebranded (to avoid some questions) but still has multiple in-depth coverage on government investigations, on activities descriptions by the local Forbes magazine (not found on wiki current version https://forbes.ua/innovations/it-kompaniya-z-kholdingu-parimatch-vtratila-naybilshogo-klienta-y-levovu-chastku-vitorgu-na-chomu-vona-zaroblyae-i-yaki-varianti-e-u-menedzhmentu-20032023-12448), and Dev.ua media constant coverage https://dev.ua/news/sbu-do-parimatch-tech-nalezhat-kompanii-stvoreni-hromadianamy-rf-kompaniia-vkhodyt-v-diia-city-1682411170, https://dev.ua/news/my-zviazalysia-z-gr8-tech-eks-parimatch-tech-i-zapytaly-pro-sytuatsiiu-z-parimatch-os-shcho-nam-rozpovily-1678777761, https://dev.ua/news/parimatch-tech and many other, including Ukrinform https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-sports/3362303-parimatch-tech-kupue-onlajnpokerrum-pokermatch.html, which estimates it as a $billion company. Amlikdi (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new relialbe sources with significant coverage. Classic WP HEY. Linkusyr (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep: While all source can’t be notable enough, few sources are secondary and article meets the minimum to be included on the platform Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are not really that good and notability is not clear. Page reads like a promo for the company. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2025 (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 23:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RLDatix

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

This article was largely written by a self-declared COI editor. All the sources cited are press releases. WP:BEFORE does not turn up anything other than PR and directories. Maybe Rathfelder can find some meritorious sources, but I did not. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs editting, not deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? Why need sourcing here, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. A search in google news reveals PR type articles and routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is only PR items [24], buying another company, naming a CEO. I don't see sourcing we can use. Article sourcing now is tangential or primary items. None of which is helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2025 (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. Discussion over sourcing shows consensus that only a single source exists with sigcov, thus not satisfying the GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Engine

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Previous AfD in 2010 was not very convincing, with a lot of trivial coverage thrown around. Notability is not inherited, so a game engine is not notable because the games it was used in are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. JTZegers (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article currently includes one piece of significant coverage: review in a print magazine fr:Linux Pratique. The previous AfD provided a link to Google Scholar search, the first two results are significant coverage: research papers about Total Annihilation: Spring (previous name of the engine): [25], [26]. Those three pieces of SIGCOV are enough for notability. If this discussion still determines the article to be deleted, I think the alternative to deletion is to merge the article to Total Annihilation#Engine remakes. --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the engine would be off-topic to mention in the Total Annihilation article itself, it's practically advertising as it only cites its own page. With regards to the research papers, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not passed as they do not show how it is significant to the general reader. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't quite follow how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is related to notability. The papers show that the game is used in the field of research of artificial intelligence in video games. It's up to the editor(s) of the article to present that information palatable to the general reader. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mika1h If researchers use HB pencils and A4 paper to do an experiment that doesn't make the paper about the experiment a good source for showing the notability of HB pencils and A4 paper. I don't think either of those research papers talks about the engine enough for notability. The french article is great though! Moritoriko (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming through this forum thread, even a redirect to the Engine remakes section could be confusing. IgelRM (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a borderline topic for sure but the kind of borderline that is basically harmless. The Linux Pratique article looks useful here. There's at least some mild secondary coverage. SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, harmless if say Linux-centric notability is good enough for WP. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as notable. Sourcing is poor and not enough for a stand alone article. Not even mnntioned in Game engine. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how being mentioned in Game engine article is any indication of notability, a lot of engines that have articles aren't mentioned there, see List of game engines. --Mika1h (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sourcing of the current article is heavily promotional as is the tone of the text. If another solid source like the french article can be found then I will change my vote but I already explained why I don't view the two research papers as convincing. Moritoriko (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZL Technologies

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

Article lacks any secondary sources and I was unable to find any with a cursory search. Brandon (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any secondary sources with significant coverage either. Definitely not meeting WP:NORG in my opinion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, ZL Tech meets the notability requirements.
Here are some examples of coverage:

NY Times

Global News Wire

Network World

Gartner (unpaid) VSZLTI (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The given source is primary. No other independent sources available. Just a promotional effort. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious indication that adequate secondary sources exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company. Regarding the sources offered by the WP:SPA above, the partnership announcement, lawsuit and product reviews fall under WP:CORPTRIV; I can't see the paywalled NYT one, but it appear to be a piece quoting a company rep, which would also not be relevant here. Searches find product comparison items, etc., but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate that this firm attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one source here, this does not reach the level of notability required for a business page. Needs more RSes to bolster notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2025 (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. Discussions are closed on the quality of the comments, not the number, and too many of the "keep" comments gave arguments to avoid, particularly it's useful / important. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app)

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

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My doubts about the nominator aside, this is not a notable product, at least not according those sources, which basically has one decent article about the product/company, and three instances of the product being mentioned. This should have been worked on in draft space. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Israel. – The Grid (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI was in the middle of writing this article. I was doing research which I was planning to add. Then, without warning, somebody (who has only a few edits to their credit and obviously no understanding of how much work is involved) added a deletion notice. I have now added many more sections to the article, as I was intending, in any case, and every statement is backed up. I will continue to improve it, because I think the subject is an important one in this day and age. This particular app is certainly not the only one, and maybe not a perfect solution, but I don't see anyone adding deletion tags to every parental control app on Wikipedia.Simxaraba (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simxaraba, you run that risk when you put things up in main space rather than write them up as a draft. If I had run into it I would have moved it to draft space, but the lesson here should be simple: don't put something up live if it's not ready. As for the "every other parental app", that's just not an argument at all. Subjects are regarded on their own merit and there is no conspiracy. Here is a long list of arguments to avoid. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes an award won by the app. It seems strange to me that this is nominated for deletion, even in light of the arguments made above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any suitable sources (meeting WP:NCORP) for either the app or the parent company unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are suitable. Authors and dates should be included in the formatting of the references. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are all kinds of minor products on wikipedia. Documenting tech history is part of what we use wikipedia for. ShipRush2 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strong delete. No significant coverage; only blogs, one review, and CEO citations or brief one-line mentions that such an app exists. The IBTimes source should be removed from the page per WP:IBTIMES (perennial source). Cinder painter (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated: "It was rated among the leading parental control apps of 2025 and cited as “best for blocking explicit content." Ovedc (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why delete an article that is well-rounded and provides sourced information about a product that many parents are looking for? Citadelian (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citadelian, I recommend you gain more experience for how it's determined whether or not article subjects have notability before weighing in on any more AFD discussions. The fact that someone out there might find an article helpful at some future time does not influence whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- agree with Turquoise in that there's a hypothetical version of this article which could exist. That hypothetical version is very far removed from what we have now. Current article is written like an advertisement or press release and mostly sources other advertisements, press releases, and SEO spam blog posts. --TonySt (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parental_controls#Parental_controls_on_mobile_devices. I think that there is not much significant coverage on this app. And notability is iffy for a stand alone article. It can be mentioned in the redirect section if anything is worth salvaging. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes. Not sure why this is nominated for deletion. Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2025 (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. per keep argumens which are more convincing and providing new sources WP HEY, wp before (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PikeOS

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:PRODUCT. a WP:BEFORE failed to return significant coverage in reliable sources. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any independent in-depth sources on PikeOS. There are some academic sources, but most are from the company/employees of the company. A significant portion of the article reads like promotion for SYSGO as well/a good portion of the article was written by User:Sysgo. With a lack of sources + promotional material I think it should go. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract of this paper^[1] by Sino-German College, Tongji University & FAW Group says: [...] designs an RTOS and Linux system suitable for the PikeOS Hypervisor; designs communication programs and verification methods between RTOS partitions and Linux partitions on the PikeOS Hypervisor; designs a test program for the real-time performance of PikeOS; and verifies the feasibility of the design scheme by running it on the Xilinx ZCU 104 single-chip microcomputer. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That someone used a commercial product in their research does not make it automatically notable. There are definitely other academic sources out there (e.g. [27]) but many are written by employees of sysgo making them non-independent. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 姜维; 朱元; 吴志红; 杜展志; 王恩东 (2020). 基于Hypervisor的汽车域控制器解决方案 [Hypervisor-Based Automotive Domain Controller Solution]. 信息通信 (7): 1–4, 8. Retrieved 2025-04-30.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is wide coverage in academic sources (conference and journal papers, books). As far as I can tell, quite a few of them are independent [28][29][30]. --MarioGom (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick scan of this and the .de wiki - looks like more than a couple to pass GNG. Widefox; talk 16:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the sources show that it has wide coverage or notable. Reads like a product promotion with hyped up jargon. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to List of BASIC dialects#OWBasic. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OWBasic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage. Interesting use of basic for Casio PDAs, but it's a very niche group of hobbyists. Most information is primary or Casio PDA forums. The ancient website for the software is here for citing in redirect:[31]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenpr: An Internet Archive search yield more than a dozen mentions in computer magazines. Many of those should be good for a post-redirect mention. BD2412 T 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, I suppose I would go with: Paul Ward, "Rebuttal #1 to Why the "CoCo 4" Will Fail", The OSK'er, Issue 5 (1991), p. 11.

You can't set up a multiuser system on a PC without spending about $2000 far a product that hacks up the operating system and brings out several serial ports. What about a compiled BASIC and an assembler? Print spooling software? That will coat extra on a PC (although OWBasic does come with PCs).

BD2412 T 16:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GWBasic (note G not O) came as a standard item with IBM-compatible PCs for a long time. Are we 100% sure this quote isn't a mistype? Elemimele (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: We can't be 100% sure any quote on anything isn't a mistype, but "G" and "O" are not next to each other on the keyboard. BD2412 T 16:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No but if something's been read by scanning software, G and O are visually similar. Note that the source you've provided also mistypes "far" for "for", and "coat" for "cost" (the latter being adjacent keys, the former distant). I think it's extremely dangerous to assume that it really means OWBasic given the context and the sheer quantity of typos in a very short bit of text. Elemimele (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your archive.org link above includes the document image that the quote was OCR scanned from—it's clearly GWBasic. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pocket Viewer, as Anonrfjwhuikdzz suggests - that article already has a brief description of OWBasic. I can't find any reliable, independent references that would support a separate article; the few hits are all OCR errors for GWBASIC, and/or predate the Pocket Viewer series (1999). Adam Sampson (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Otherwise it would be inconsistent to have a redirect to page where there is no mention of it Clenpr (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects#OWBasic. I added an entry there. It does not meet the notability criteria for a standalone article, but there's way enough primary sources to prove this does exist and has been discussed in the niche of Pocket viewer users. BD2412: Note that a lot of apparent historical mentions are actually GWBasic but with OCR errors. I have not checked them all though. --MarioGom (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide an independent published source. See WP:RS Clenpr (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects#OWBasic. This does not have enough coverage for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2025 (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.

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[1] ttps://www.techradar.com/news/judge-orders-mediation-after-jury-orders-oxylabs-to-pay-dollar75m-in-latest-episode-of-proxy-wars

[2] ttps://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a60459870/upside-down-pineapple-meaning/

[3] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/30/upside-down-pineapples-secret-symbol-spain-mercadona-stores/

[4] 姜维; 朱元; 吴志红; 杜展志; 王恩东 (2020). 基于Hypervisor的汽车域控制器解决方案 [Hypervisor-Based Automotive Domain Controller Solution]. 信息通信 (7): 1–4, 8. Retrieved 2025-04-30.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]