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

VFairs

AfDs for this article:

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

I draftified this because the original version was purely based on press releases. It was "improved" with other sources, but when the first source gives a 404 ([1]), as does the WSJ one[2], and I see a source like this one, I don't think it is worth keeping the article or the editor involved (note both the names of the writers and the ISBN):

Smith, John; Doe, Jane (2023). "Key Players in Virtual Event Platforms". The Evolution of Event Technology. Tech Press. pp. 112–115. ISBN 978-0123456789.

And then we have actual, working sources that don't even mention VFairs[3] Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Companies, Software, and Texas. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Note: I have just declined a speedy deletion request from the author. Given the previous AFD was pre-empted by an author requested deletion, although by a different author, something doesn't sit right about this about the whole thing and it looks like an attempt to game AFD. Courtesy pings to the admins involved in the previous AFD. @Pppery, BusterD, and Metropolitan90: -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - let me work more on the page; it has a chance to meet GNG but I will work on it in the draft space.--Avver Maxx (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not impressed at the gaming here. At this point, this article is plainly disruptive. Unlike startups, we aren't going to consider that a good thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft MakeCode

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has some mentions but would be better as a merge into one of the many Microsoft product lists such as List of Microsoft software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but I think the subject does have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability on its own. I’m open to improving the article with better references if that helps. A merge could work, but I’d prefer to try building it up a bit first—worth a shot before removing it entirely. Vinizex94🌍 01:31, 24 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 06:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is my considered opinion that it would be advantageous to acknowledge that this matter originates from a highly informative publication concerning the BBC Micro:Bit. While I understand and appreciate the rationale underpinning your recommendation, I found the referenced material to be of notable interest, which subsequently granted me access to the associated open-source code. My engagement with this information led me to identify a project for which I now feel considerable enthusiasm. I am of the firm conviction that, notwithstanding the fact that this pertains solely to a single article of moderate popularity and/or utility, it would nevertheless be prudent to retain it within our purview. TechFan6456 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC) — TechFan6456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@TechFan6456: This looks like it was written using AI, and even if it wasn't, looks like WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't a valid rationale. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HEHE you caught me. But that was basically what I was trying to say. TechFan6456 (talk) 18:14, 5 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 redirect‎ to ZF Friedrichshafen. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZF Openmatics

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

Company which only seems to have received trivial coverage, failing WP:ORG. Some references are written like press releases. Article mainly created and maintained by two WP:SPA editors (2013, 2022).C 679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. C 679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Btw the company is currently in liquidation. FromCzech (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZF Friedrichshafen (WP:ATD). 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:50, 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 merge‎ to 4A Games. asilvering (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4A Engine

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

Article appears too technical to be encyclopedic (e.g. "3,000 tasks per 30ms frame"). Despite the large Eurogamer/Digital Foundry feature, relevance appears largely related to 4A Games. IgelRM (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. IgelRM (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to 4A Games. 4A engine should then be made into a disambiguation page and have links to both the video game engine the car engine. --Mika1h (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. There's sourcing from Digital Foundary to support appropriate discussion that it exists but not enough third-party to support a standalone article. Masem (t) 18:15, 23 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.

Sleek Flow

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

Article is about a startup that fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NCORP). There aren't sources that discusses the subject in depth, and the sources are mostly sponsored, routine announcements of raisings etc..., and talk about the founder other than the business itself. Also note that this source, while it meets WP:SIGCOV, it might also be sponsored by the way. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT, including the one listed in Hotelier which is unbylined and likely churnalism or sponsored. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the company is not very old, but it has garnered significant press in several reputable sources. Complies with WP:NCORP. SailabK (talk) 03:50, 21 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!} 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources in the article that provide significant and independent coverage. My own search also found several other reliable sources. The article's current state could benefit from editing, particularly in the introduction.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the 2 keep !votes who have very few edits outside this AfD, I will ask for a list of the "significant coverage" that shows this meets WP:NCORP as I am not seeing it and apparently neither did the nominator. Prior to listing a WALLOFTEXT, keep WP:NEWSORGINDIA in mind. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the how many edits you have. This is all about the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for Companies. And this topic fulfill WP:NCORP with underlying proof of significant coverage. SailabK (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. That accompanied by the fact you have not been able to show how this meets NCORP is considered by closing admins as AfD is NOT a vote count. If you are able to show the sources that "fulfill" NCORP, I would be happy to review, but so far you failed to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glad to see the vague Keep !votes being called out - needs to happen more often IMHO. None of the references I can find meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. We have advertorials, mere mentions, articles that rely entirely on information provided by company execs or regurgitated press releases. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you're going to !vote keep, please list the sources you think are the best so other editors have something to go by.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:59, 4 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Turnbull

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Computing, and Software. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - very poorly written. TNT? I'm not !voting because he's a friend of a friend. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources merely confirm books he's written. Lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 23 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 ABAP#Transactions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T-code

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not have encyclopedic value; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LR.127 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed, there is by far enough independent coverage. Punkt64 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The subject is very much notable - just search "SAP t-codes" on Google Books. There is an absolutely enormous amount of independent, secondary writing about SAP transaction codes. But I tend to agree with the nominator that there's almost nothing encyclopedic that can be written about them in isolation. All of the sources about t-codes are some version of a how-to guide or another violation of WP:NOT. My suggested ATD would be a redirect to ABAP#Transactions, but open to other suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per @MCE89 -- have also encountered cases in which trying to create an article for every concept fails because concepts need to be covered together, and little can be said without repetition in trying to make an isolated article on each part. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:45, 28 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!} 03:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MicroSIP

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has never been referenced, is completely promotional, the software isn't notable, and now the page is being used to link farm to malware. 107.115.5.36 (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I have formatted the AfD here per the IP editor's request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing either in the article or via a Google search to suggest the subject meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' – This AFD was started due to this ANI discussion. I'm not sure what I think of the nomination though, having heard of this software, but I think it's worth pointing out the last deletion nom and the sources listed and mentioned therein (though I don't know how strong they are). Graham87 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a single academic citation in the previous AfD - to a paper on another topic, which documents the use of MicroSIP as one of the tools used. [4] This clearly doesn't constitute in-depth coverage of MicroSIP itself. Beyond that, the AfD seems to involve vague hand-waving at supposed sources, rather than anything concrete. I think we'd need more to go on to justify an article. As of now, we have nothing in the way of independent sourcing to build an article around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the addition of problematic links is not in itself a reason for deletion, as page protection can be applied. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete - Reviews by ~~Softonic and~~ About.com: [5], [6]. There are results on Google Books & Scholar, best one seems like this one linked at previous AfD: [7]. There's also this list entry by Lifewire: [8]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A review on a website offering the software as a download isn't an independent source - Softonic has a clear interest in boosting the products they host. About.com review material is generally regarded as a SPS, and thus unreliable. [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The About.com reviewer could be considered a subject matter expert. He specialized in VoIP-related topics: [10] and is cited in this thesis by University of Bedfordshire: [11]. --Mika1h (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point about Softonic, I did some digging and they seem to package adware with their installation files. I changed my vote to delete. --Mika1h (talk) 13:01, 20 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!} 06:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ability Plus Software

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

This page has been barely sourced for 15 years. My attempts at finding anything were fruitless but the generic name doesn't help. Possibly support a merge or redirect to their product page Ability Office but that page is similarly poorly sourced. Moritoriko (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No usable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: There are currently distinct articles for Ability Plus, Ability Office and Ability Plus Software - probably two too many. There's a lot of once-familiar names in these articles, but I agree with the nom about the lack of demonstrable notability for this company. A redirect seems a decent outcome for the moment, though I would suggest Ability Plus as the better target. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 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 redirect‎ to Ximian. ✗plicit 00:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Carpet (software)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ximian since it was part of that distribution, and covered as such (e.g PC Mag). MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Not enough coverage to indicate notability. – numbermaniac 14:15, 31 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 16:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twoblade

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

Promotional article about something of dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed this is probably WP:TOOSOON, but if this article is kept, it absolutely needs a hatnote to cover the far more notable 2Blades. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no references independent of the subject to establish notability. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline WP:A7 material. no claim to notability. Sohom (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's promotion for a non-notable product. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. ZachH007 (talk) 13:03, 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 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 14:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoship CAD/CAM

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

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and has a severe lack of any WP:SIGCOV on the software. Only mentions I could find are not independent or are just passing mentions. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:13, 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 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 14:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin RIP

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

The sources already on this page are either to press release style pages or to the company home page. I had trouble trying to find anything about this because of its current and previous names being so common across the internet. It's been tagged for 15 years, might as well start a discussion on it now. Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article was created by a CoI editor. Moritoriko (talk) 06:16, 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 XBRL. I appreciate the nominator's forthright disclosure of their potential conflict of interest. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XBRLS

AfDs for this article:

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

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

pdwxbrl (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Holds a paid position at XBRL International, the not-for-profit responsible for the XBRL standard)

I believe that this page does not meet the general notability criteria. The Talk:XBRLS page itself states (from 2008):

"XBRLS doesn't have much notability and jus[sic] a few links because XBRLS is a brand new, only a few months old."

XBRLS was an idea that never gained any traction, and it's inclusion as a separate page is inconsistent with other XBRL-related developments that are mentioned on the main XBRL page. For example, Inline XBRL is used for millions of company reports every year, including UK tax filings, filings for listed EU companies (under ESEF), and filings to the US SEC, Japan FSA, and South African CIPC, and yet is covered in a section on the main XBRL page.

The only relevant first-page hits for a Google search for XBRLS are the wikipedia page, and an article written by the authors of XBRLS.

XBRLS was not an official XBRL Standard, and its inclusion as a separate page is likely to cause confusion to readers. Pdwxbrl (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to XBRL, especially since it's defined as a subset of it, and there doesn't seem to be so much specific coverage about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:42, 19 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!} 23:08, 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.

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 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 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 [12][13][14]. 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.

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 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.

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)