Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Software

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

The result was 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ScaleBase

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

An article on a start-up which was commercially active 2011-15. Two of the references are about obtaining investment, another is about ScaleArc, the firm which purchased the assets; these don't contribute to notability. Aside from 2 dead-link market reviews which presumably covered the firm's products, there is the bylined 2011 InformationWeek item, which I regard as start-up proposition coverage. I don't see the depth of coverage to demonstrate that this firm attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Massachusetts. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing much significant coverage and agree with nominator.Hkkingg (talk) 21:04, 1 June 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 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xplor Technologies

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

Don't see how this company passes WP:NCORP. The sources are all WP:ORGTRIV, articles about its founder but not WP:SIGCOV of the company, WP:TRADES publications, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and that's also what I find in my WP:BEFORE search. I'm not seeing any coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH and thus passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by a single purpose account and possible WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a now-blocked WP:SOCK whose edit focus was on articles about this and a later venture by the company's founder. Xplor seems to have pivoted through payment services for several sectors during its independent existence, and again since its acquisition and a later further merger. The current announcement-based references fall under WP:CORPTRIV and searches find more recent announcements but not the coverage of the firm itself needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chowly

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding and aquisition announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, checking sources are all non-independent, I didn't see any other relevant sources Moritoriko (talk) 11:47, 3 June 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.

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]

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 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 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 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 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 [4][5][6]. 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]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)