Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A412 (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 14 May 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Engine.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Software. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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 redirect‎ to Fusion engine. asilvering (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I'm pretty sure these references are hallucinated, as besides the IGN one, none resolve (the GameSpot one resolves too, but because it's using the ID of a different article). ~ A412 talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Redirect to Fusion engine makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been re-opened to get a more clearer consensus on a redirect or merge or else.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particular relevant to merge. A redirect to the Fusion engine disambiguation page is standard procedure. The phantom references used by the author should probably be investigated further. IgelRM (talk) 18:52, 26 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keka HR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:48, 21 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FCX file compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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]
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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. (talkcontribsglobal count) 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anonrfjwhuikdzz,@Itzcuauhtli11,@MarioGom - FYI, I just added 5 refs. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal 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_creepTalk 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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. (talkcontribsglobal count) 23:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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. (talkcontribsglobal 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_creepTalk 14:30, 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 Eclipse Modeling Framework. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMT (Eclipse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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]
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

*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]

::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]
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. (talkcontribsglobal count) 05:14, 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 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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

Microsoft InterConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]
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]
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]


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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

@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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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 (tc) 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]
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 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]


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 (tc) 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All prior XfDs for this page:


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]

  • 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]
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 () 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. JTZegers (talk) 18:22, 3 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]
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]
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)