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

StreetComplete

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

Promotional content, no indication of notability. This used to be a redirect which may be a better idea thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it would be better to improve the article instead of deleting it, StreetComplete is not the same as OSM. I'm not super familiar with Wikipedia but IMO notability seems to be fulfilled with several different sources covering the topic.

Also, could you please be more specific on what parts are "promotional" and how they could be re phrased.

Thanks and best regards --Fkjs (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: One sentence mentioned in https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/02/google_blocks_android_foss_donations/, many project descriptions at https://nlnet.nl/project/; NLNet seems to be considered a reliable secondary source, see LabPlot precedent. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has good source coverage and advertising issues are fixed by now Fkjs (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a evaluation on the new references added to the article? Hoping to have clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 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. ✗plicit 00:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahau (software)

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

Contested PROD. Not seeing any additional independent sources outside the two currently in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spinoff source checks all the boxes, but I don't think a 12-min podcast interview w/ founder satisfies GNG. I found a mention in a master's thesis, a mention in short article about hackathon, and a little writeup in an academic report of some kind, but the writeup is only sourced to the company website. I will say that searching for sources was quite difficult given Ahau seems to mean I/me in the Maori language - many unrelated hits to wade through - it's possible I missed something. If more sigcov in RS can't be located I think a great alternative would be to start an article about Indigenous data sovereignty w/ a section on Maori, as the overarching topic seems notable (lots of scholarship and reporting), I'm just not convinced this specific startup is. Zzz plant (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think the sources, especially the lengthy Spinoff article almost qualify the article for inclusion and "I want to believe" (WP:ILIKEIT). Nevertheless, I must respect our notability guidelines and I spent 15 minutes looking. Ping me if someone turns something up. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, requires more notability to justify inclusion. Every piece of software does not warrant its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. First, a couple of clarifications. The "podcast" linked as a source was originally broadcast on RNZ, the NZ public radio broadcaster (akin to BBC in the UK or NPR in the US), which is why it's on their website. This is not a business article about a "startup", it's a tech article about a pioneering open source project, created by and for indigenous people. I invite those proposing deletion to stop and consider the speedy deletion of "DEI" content on US public services websites, and check that implicit bias is playing no part is dismissing this topic as unworthy of a WP article. It's hard to find sources that meet WP standards because of precisely that bias, as well as international media bias against relatively small countries and population. Surely a mention in an academic thesis, combined with the Spinoff and RNZ links, make it worth leaving the article in place for now, with a "needs more sources" flag? DanylStrype — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no purpose to a 'need more sources tag' if more sources don't exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A RNZ podcast should probably count as a source with editorial oversight, just as blogs maintained by news media are normally exempt from our “no blogs” rule. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that the RNZ is a RS, and for what it's worth they do seem to describe it themselves as a podcast - although my understanding is that interviews (regardless of outlet) don't usually count towards GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of comparison, WP has an article on AntennaPod. A podcast-listening app, of which there are dozens on Android alone, many of them open source. Ahau is a unique P2P network software project, using a novel protocol (Secure Scuttlebutt) created by indigenous people to securely store, and selectively share, their genealogical memory. This isn't notable enough, despite local news media references, but one of many podcast apps is? Again, I'm tapping the implicit bias sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 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 Fusion engine. asilvering (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Engine

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hanger 13, the studio that developed it. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there's anything to merge. The article content fundamentally fails WP:V if the information is cited to sources that don't actually exist. "Fusion Engine" has zero hits in the VG custom search engine. (It has one, but it's not related to this engine). ~ A412 ^talk! 18:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find the references, so unless the creator can come up with them, it appears to fail GNG. It is also troubling and the creator seems disruptive already, so intervention may be necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanger 13 or draftify. A new article with forged sources should just not hit mainspace. I would encourage you to just use draftification for these things rather than AFD. MarioGom (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Fusion engine as miscapitalisation. I don't see any value redirecting to Hangar 13, with way too little available to be worth mentioning elsewhere. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Redirect to Fusion engine makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fusion engine. I added a ref to Mafia III and Mafia: Definitive Edition articles and updated the disambiguation page. Now both Mafia games and Descent 3 have statements about using "Fusion Engine". --Mika1h (talk) 08:47, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found modest but sufficiently non-trivial, event-focused coverage in Telangana Today, IndianWeb2 (a local news site), and others like The Economic Times. They give not so bad third-party coverage that makes it possible to publish a page using only independent sources. Also, there are some quotes from the company's management which are not helpful, but they do not dominate the coverage. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 15:13, 15 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]

Keep. It appears to meet WP:GNG as I found some significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable due to its big industry scope and a number of reliable sourced media links within the page and wp before (online). J. P. Fridrich (talk) 11:55, 22 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

(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.

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 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.): [6][7][8][9] 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 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 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): [10], [11]. 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.

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)