Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Software

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

The result was Speedy delete as a sock creation. And I'm also title blacklisting * Pppery * it has begun... 01:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

N-iX (software company)

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

Delete per not notable company, fails NCORP. Recreated of the previously deleted page created by the WMF globally banned abuser. Total Ombers (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ni-X has quite a history on this and other Wikipedias:
    The creators of some of these articles have been identified as among the myriad of socks of Bodiadub, globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation ("SanFranBanned"). Bodiadub was linked to a Ukrainian paid editing ring, Wikibusiness.
    I should note that all of this happened before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; the company's gotten some coverage since then. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the company received more coverage, including in Bloomberg and the WSJ, which I mentioned earlier. As I understand it, this article was created by another editor who is not connected to Wikibusiness (this can be confirmed by comparing it with previously deleted versions). That is why an account resembling a Wikibusiness account is now nominating this article for deletion, with the goal of making the company “come to them for help again.” It’s outright racketeering. 46.211.87.225 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you have access to these deleted revisions? And I must ask, why do you want to defend this article? Even if this is a paid editor looking to delete the article with the intention of recreating it after getting the owner to pay, it'll hit someone's watchlist and it will be soon deleted (or turned into a stub.) This article has been created seven times now, people will notice if it comes back. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also obvious that the person who created this article is another paid editor. If they don't work for Wikibusiness, they work for someone else. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have access to the previous versions; that’s exactly why I’m suggesting that someone with access to the deleted versions can check this by comparing the formatting and text. 46.211.87.225 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be the same version as those previously deleted since it cites references published since the last deletion. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of the provenance of this article, I think from the sources presented that this company has become notable since the last deletion. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the WSJ and it's not reliable at all. Please check it by yourself. Business Insider while being not notable by itself, provides a mix of interviews: "We always have this bright picture when it comes to the long term," he told Insider. "We really want to build a unicorn. And we really want to double, triple in size and get new services to the market."
    "I believe that those kind of events or steps, they show to the community some sort of stability that regardless of war, we have our biggest tech conference in western Ukraine," Deshchynskyy said. This year in particular, the conference championed resilience and focused on military tech, modern cyberwarfare tactics, and how tech companies can aid the war effort.
    not much to qualify as reliable source either 95.47.253.56 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WSJ is reliable, it's just a trivial source. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy delete as the creation of a banned sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, it's not a notable company and not relialbe sorces were demonstrated; the best new source WSJ has a routine trivial mentions in an interview format (here what we have: “We continuously have these airstrike signals that something might happen, and people have to go to their shelters,” said Andrew Pavliv, chief executive of N-iX, a software-development company of nearly 2,000 employees with its biggest office in Lviv. But Mr. Pavliv says his company will deliver about 70% of promised services this week to its clients, which he says are largely in the U.S. and Europe. and another fragment: “I don’t want to speak about it,” said Mr. Pavliv of N-iX. “In the worst-case scenario, if Ukraine is occupied, people will move out. We really hope it will not happen.” 95.47.253.56 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC) — 95.47.253.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Business Insider is based on inteviews too: "I believe that those kind of events or steps, they show to the community some sort of stability that regardless of war, we have our biggest tech conference in western Ukraine," Deshchynskyy said. This year in particular, the conference championed resilience and focused on military tech, modern cyberwarfare tactics, and how tech companies can aid the war effort.
    "We always have this bright picture when it comes to the long term," he told Insider. "We really want to build a unicorn. And we really want to double, triple in size and get new services to the market." 95.47.253.56 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't quote large paragraphs from copyrighted sources. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE WSJ and Bloomberg are RS, but the mentions are trivial. Dualpendel (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to draw the attention of the editors who have participated in this discussion, in particular User:A. B. and User:ChildrenWillListen, to the fact that there is now vote-stacking in favor of deletion coming from an anonymous IP address, as well as from the account User:Dualpendel, which was created only a few months ago and whose main contributions are promotional articles and draft pages. Please take this into account when closing the discussion. 94.153.49.247 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Votes are not being counted; only arguments matter. Don’t worry about that, and avoid analyzing other contributions, as this is outside the scope of any AfD 2601:183:4B81:47F0:D8E4:40FB:1486:91D8 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, vote stacking is exactly what AfD is concerned about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has no relevance 200.46.55.53 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either if you can speedy delete an article under discussion at AFD; it probably depends on the reason. For instance, a deletion under WP:A7 ("No indication of importance") seems like an abusive shortcut to deletion. In this case, I think it makes sense here, especially given the article's many rebirths and the author's sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan. In any event, we'll soon learn the answer since I just tagged it for speedy deletion. The worst that can happen is that an admin declines to delete it. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion during an AfD -- see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Process interaction for general principles of how deletion processes interact. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting read, thanks for letting me know! 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to nominate it for Speedy Deletion, do so. It will get deleted, or the Speedy will be declined and we'll discuss it here like normal. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 11 July 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 06:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damco Solutions

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

This IT services company fails to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP, since I cannot locate any substantial coverage to fulfill notability standards. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those appear to be broken links, and don't show up at archive.org. Can you supply direct links to the material you're seeing there? You're noting "several others", but the rest appear to be paid placement and press material. Which others do you feel are significant? Sam Kuru (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same junk sources used at the redirect hijack here, and at the deleted spam page here. Some clear SEO blackhat sites removed, including some blatant promotional language. The rest is just press releases and broken links. Looking around, I could not locate anything other than more PR and a ton of seedy paid placement in the usual sites. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:14, 6 July 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.

BetterSleep

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

Non-notable app. No significant in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Polygnotus (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can only find the app mentioned in a list of others saying how they work, like source 5 is. [11], is about the same, I don't think that's enough coverage4 for an article here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Every one of the six sources cited independently offer significant coverage of the subject, including two (CNN, les affaires) in which the app is the only subject of the article. Note that #2 is the only one made after the rename to "BetterSleep" in late 2021 (see press release); all other sources use the app's old name "Relax Melodies". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added the press release as source #1 as the rename was uncited, so by "the six sources cited" I mean what's currently sources #2–7. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu Note that CNN Underscored is completely separate from CNN and has complete editorial independence.[12] And of course they use affiliate marketing to make money, and when there is money to be made it is not an independent review. If one of their contributors says that a product sucks, they won't make money from affiliate links. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I still think they should be reliable, just like the NYT Wirecutter. They have "rigorous" editorial policies, a publicized listing of the members of the editorial board, provides independent analysis and criticism, and does not have a reputation for errors. It should be a reliable source in its own right.
    I'm surprised there hasn't been an RSN discussion on affiliate marketing in general, but past discussions of sources did not consider affiliate marketing a conflict of interest. See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#The Bully Breeds. Adding affiliate links to every product is standard mainstream product-reviews practice. The Verge for example also uses affiliate links no matter what or how good the product is: "HP has found an exciting new way to DRM your printer!". (You also have to preserve your reputation by not recommending bad things.) Not to mention Retailers and brands cannot influence our coverage in any way — neither through sending us unsolicited products nor by paying for coverage. While we do run sponsored content, that is handled by a team separate from our editorial team and is clearly labeled. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu But it is not CNN that reviewed the product (a well known media organisation), but something that uses the CNN brand and leverages its (perception of) credibility and reach to generate income.
    I still think they should be reliable Agreed, they should be, but aren't. And they aren't WP:INDEPENDENT because of their massive conflict of interest.
    NYT Wirecutter is slightly different in the sense that The Wirecutter was a different company that was then acquired by NYT, but of course they also have a massive conflict of interest.
    And you can't use conflict of interest spam to claim notability of course.
    They have "rigorous" editorial policies No, they do not. CNN does, maybe. provides independent analysis and criticism no, they do not. How can they provide independent analysis when they make money with every sale? I know you know what independent means. does not have a reputation for errors It does not have a reputation at all. People just skip the ads. They have complete editorial independence, see the link I posted, so why do you act as if they are CNN?
    past discussions of sources did not consider affiliate marketing a conflict of interest That seems irrelevant, there are other sources who might've been considered reliable sources in a different context in the past according to some random anonymous Wikipedians, but does that mean that we can therefore ignore our notability guideline and common sense? If you spend an hour digging in the archives you'll find a lot of bad ideas and opinions.
    Adding affiliate links to every product is standard mainstream product-reviews practice For companies who make their money by promoting products and services and get a kickback for every customer they bring. But not for a reliable source.
    You also have to preserve your reputation by not recommending bad things CNN Underscored has no reputation. CNN does, although it isn't great, and they are using it for some quick cash so I doubt they really care about it.
    Retailers and brands cannot influence our coverage in any way — neither through sending us unsolicited products nor by paying for coverage. While we do run sponsored content, that is handled by a team separate from our editorial team and is clearly labeled. People lying on the internet? In the context of marketing? How dare they! Of course you can buy coverage. But the point was that you wrote: Every one of the six sources cited independently offer significant coverage of the subject, including two (CNN as if it was CNN who reviewed it, to prove notability, but it is not CNN and since they are getting paid it is not independent and therefore cannot be used to claim notability. https://info.wrightsmedia.com/cnn-underscored-licensing Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I meant to concede that it wasn't CNN with my "Thanks"; sorry that wasn't clear. I'm saying that Underscored seems to be a good source (though not nearly as stellar as CNN) in its own right.
    I put "rigorous" in quotes because I was quoting the page you linked: Underscored team works with complete editorial independence and adheres to rigorous standards, make better purchasing decisions through rigorous and unbiased reviews. CNN does, maybe How do you know that they are rigorous? Is it not RSN's longstanding tradition of checking for page with published editorial guidelines and members (especially long ones), as Underscord also has? How do you know that Underscored is not rigorous? How can they provide independent analysis I think I meant "original" here, hence not just parroting the press releases; my bad. It does not have a reputation at all. People just skip the ads. I strongly disagree. A lot of people trust and use this site. As I've said before, even though they're not CNN, they're a mainstream reviews outlet. And like I said, if they persistently recommend bad things, consumers wouldn't trust it, and revenue would dry up.
    some random anonymous Wikipedians i.e. consensus, WP:Consensus. We should start a discussion at RSN on whether affiliate marketing links count as sponsored content. I personally do not think they should, as they do not give any specific entities additional attention. Practically there's no impact of affiliate-linking everything on assessing reliability: either there's a pattern of exaggerations and falsehoods and lies or there's not. And even if you argue affiliate marketing emphasizes things too positively, any outlet can be too positive with or without affiliate links. I fail to see a practical reason to factor in the presence of affiliate marketing into whether material is usable or how that'd impact coverage in ways we can't assess otherwise.
    But not for a reliable source. I do not know an MSM product (hardware, software, and accessories) reviews site that does not use affiliate links. In fact I don't even know any RS product review that don't except for some blogs like DistroWatch. You're proposing us throw out millions of citations on hardware, software, music, games, just because they have affiliate links. It's a lucky thing we're in the subscription streaming age, or your proposal would probably extend to film as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know any RS product review On second thought I'll trim that down to "product review outlet". You can't deny that MobileSyrup, CBC('s Life column which doesn't appear to be an independent thing like Underscored is), and USA Today have stellar reputations, and their reviews averaging about seven paragraphs each without any affiliate links should be enough to satisfy GNG on their own. Which makes the question of affiliate links rather moot. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu And like I said, if they persistently recommend bad things, consumers wouldn't trust it, and revenue would dry up. In an mathematically perfect world where every reader buys every product/service mentioned and then uses them and compares them to the others and forms a reasonable opinion about whether the advice given was correct, taking into account factors such as price and convenience and the needs of the average consumer. But in reality people tend to buy 1 of a product category, do not compare that product to every other product mentioned by Underscored, and have no clue if the advice given was good or bad.
    I don't know anyone whose opinion I would trust in all these categories: the best bridal hair accessories, the best outdoor home security cameras, the best face sun screens and the best compost bins. It can easily take a decade or two to become a product category expert in, for example, laptops. So it confuses me that you keep defending Underscored when you (like most) are not in a position to judge them accurately. And since Underscored uses many reviewers in many product categories it is very very unlikely that one person can know all those product categories well enough to determine if Underscored makes good recommendations. You'd have to form a team and spend a very significant amount of money if you want to judge Underscored as a whole, right?
    A lot of people trust and use this site Well, that is news to me.
    i.e. consensus, WP:Consensus. Nah, a handful of sentences by a handful of random people does not consensus make; there are plenty of people with bad minority opinions.
    You're proposing us throw out millions of citations on hardware, software, music, games, just because they have affiliate links. No, I am saying that if a website makes money from writing a review or an ad, we can't use the fact that its mentioned in that review or ad to say the product is notable. Because notability is derived from WP:INDEPENDENT sources. See WP:GNG. I am saying we need to follow the guideline (which describes the consensus).
    Practically there's no impact of affiliate-linking everything on assessing reliability If you review a popular product and you think it is shit, and you know as a product category expert that there are many cheaper and better alternatives available that are far far less popular, wouldn't you be incentivized to be very positive about the expensive popular product instead of the cheap unpopular alternatives? Because promoting expensive and popular products keeps you employed and indirectly pays your rent, and telling people not to do that does not. More people will click the link if the product is popular and the site will get a larger commission. Of course you are an honest person, but not everyone on this planet is... see perverse incentive and Choice-supportive bias and all that. If I am a review website owner, and one of my reviewers consistently says that cheap Aliexpress alternatives are good enough for most people, and warns people not to fall for the hype and buy popular overpriced trash, why wouldn't I part ways with them?
    Something like this is not a review but an ad for a Luxottica-owned brand, which artificially inflates the prices, gives discounts and then tells DiffusionPR to promote it. Diffusion left no stone unturned and connected with reporters well ahead of these busy shopping holidays, securing a consistent drumbeat of coverage in outlets like USA Today, Buzzfeed, Forbes, HuffPost, CNN Underscored, Insider, Rolling Stone, CNET, Mashable , and many more. They probably use the veneer of a review site because it is more effective than straight up sponsored content, although the process is the same. I do not live in a world with a lot of unbiased review sites who use affiliate links but just happen to be overly excited about boring products. Something like UserBenchmark is famously biased. Polygnotus (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have to compare them; they just have to get a bad experience that doesn't match what they read from the article. there are plenty of people with bad minority opinions. But that was clearly not the minority. It was the entire discussion save for one or two that argued it could disqualify, the actual minority.
    I don't know anyone whose opinion I would trust in all these categories Would you trust any single person whose opinion you would trust in all of the following: the Californian housing crisi, the impacts of the MTA's bond issuance fees, the latest season and contestants of "Island of Love", the movements of warfare in Ukraine, Kenyan killings and protests, Asian creepy furbies called "Labubu"s, and a warm front across the Northeastern United States? Which is why we all trust large editorial boards that hire an expert for each area. This argument does not apply to Underscored any more than NYT.
    I don't understand; why is independence important for notability but not citing the same claim in undisclaimer'd wikivoice? [[WP:WHYN|The entire purpose of notability] is so that the wikivoice in articles can stand, so that articles that can cite such wikivoice exist. I don't see any reason to decouple this.
    Expensive purchases are also a lot less likely to be bought, especially impulse-bought. There isn't much of an advantage to disproportionately because of the big difference in sales. I can also stretch more people will click the link to absurdity by citing ads on websites and saying websites with ads will promote and exaggerate human-interest stories, giving every subject a soft-news spin because it pays the rent.
    The glasses article does not have affiliate links. I don't see what you mean by "artificially inflates the prices". Underscored does not make money from this article. Underscored writes articles on deals and sales and they were provided with the content from their mission statement on a silver platter and so they published it (cf. how the Heritage Foundation's free content gets parroted greatly even in liberal media, see Davis & Owen 1998). I don't see any reason that glasses article should be uncitable.
    I don't think the case of UserBenchmark says anything. An experienced editor I had never previously encountered once fervently used all kinds of bad-faith arguments and tactics to try to remove or deface an article I created. I heavily doubt either of those were paid and think that both were just fanboying. It doesn't make sense for UserBenchmark to demean potential affiliate-marketing revenue sources either. Intel and AMD compete in very similar price ranges.
    Frankly this thread is a bit exhausting and I'd rather wait for the in-general RSN discussion to continue this debate, especially as there's other sources cited that don't have affiliate links, which already give notability on their own, and definitely with the les affaires piece. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    they just have to get a bad experience that doesn't match what they read from the article If I have a disappointing experience with a single product, and I've never bought another product in that category and I know nothing about it (for example I buy the recommended face sun screen and I still get burned) I would assume I did it wrong and blame myself and not the review.
    But that was clearly not the minority. The people who want to abandon WP:GNG and no longer want to require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY are a (tiny) minority.
    This argument does not apply to Underscored any more than NYT. Indeed, but you are arguing they are reliable, and I am saying you can't judge their reliability unless you spend a lot of money and assemble a team of experts who know about photochemistry and pharmaceutical formulation and compost bins et cetera.
    I don't understand; why is independence important for notability See WP:GNG. We demand independent sources to establish notability because otherwise anyone can throw some money around and be notable. If people independent of the subject of the article do not even mention it, it should not have a Wikipedia article.
    but not citing the same claim in undisclaimer'd wikivoice? That is a different discussion, perhaps best suited for another venue.
    There isn't much of an advantage to disproportionately because of the big difference in sales. I think there is a word or two missing in that sentence.
    I can also stretch "more people will click the link" to absurdity...giving every subject a soft-news spin because it pays the rent. No, ragebaiting for clicks pays the rent. But not in the review site business.
    The glasses article does not have affiliate links. Because it doesn't need to. Look at the HTML of that page. There are using a bunch of ways to track people.
    I don't see what you mean by "artificially inflates the prices". Luxottica#Criticism
    Underscored does not make money from this article. Ha! They must be publishing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Bless them.
    Frankly this thread is a bit exhausting Agreed.
    especially as there's other sources cited Yeah it kinda confused me that you focused on the Underscored thing because it is the weakest source you could've picked to defend, other than the press release perhaps. Polygnotus (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you agree that the other sources are enough? (I disagree that it's weak b/c I disagree about affiliate links but whatever.) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu No, I wouldn't AfD an article about a subject I think is notable. But I do think reasonable people can disagree, and we don't really have a line in the sand, so of course there is gonna be a gray area. Some people disagree with WP:GNG and that is fine but they are a small minority. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason you don't think les affaires, CBC, MobileSyrup, and USA Today are enough? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu Note also that the les affaires article is not independent, BetterSleep was co-founded by Simon Alex Bérubé who has known Alain McKenna (who wrote the article) for years.[13][14] They are the people on the left- and righthand side on the couch. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see from that is McKenna interviewing Bérubé for their tech podcast a month after McKenna wrote the review. At least from the translated subtitles I don't see anything about a conflict of interest or years-long friendship. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu What do you think about merging to Teladoc Health? BetterSleep was acquired by Teladoc Health in 2021.[15] Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BetterSleep article can be expanded to cover the features the reviews found. I don't think that can be done if it were merged. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed may be of interest. Would you be interested in collaborating on improving these articles? For example, the paid editors who promoted Teladoc Health seem to have forgotten to mention the fact that it infringed on privacy on a massive scale, and shared sensitive health data with the likes of Meta.[16] Google something like "Teladoc FTC" and you'll find plenty of stuff. Same with BetterHelp.[17] There are also the class action lawsuits of course.[18][19] So its not just the customers who feel like victims; the investors do too. I think it would make more sense to follow the advice in WP:SPLIT and do a SIZESPLIT when there is enough content to warrant that. Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I would be interested. I don't like making the page history more complicated by merging this in just for an inevitable split. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu Unsurprisingly, in my view that split is far from inevitable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can cover the features, even just the features mentioned in the reviews, in a merged article. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources from CBC and CNN are reliable, cover the subject in-depth, and are sufficiently independent from the app creator(s) to establish notability. The other sources are also probably reliable, but this alone is sufficient to establish notability. I don't think it's reasonable to delete an article on the unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperAccelerated Have you read the above? the unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review That is not what we were talking about... And of course these people were compensated for their work; did you expect them to be volunteers? sufficiently independent from the app creator(s) to establish notability Have you read WP:INDEPENDENT? You seem to be using your own definition. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflics of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron's argument is far simpler than yours, and I'm much more inclined to prefer simple arguments to complex ones. Thanks for your time. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can tell. Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why so snide? HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperAccelerated You appear to be implying that I made an unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review. which is a weird thing to claim because no one actually said that. We are talking about the notability of a subject of an Wikipedia article. To jump in with such a statement is counterproductive, because then the conversation turns into a meta-conversation about who said what and why and how that should be interpreted. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was based on the following: "People lying on the internet? In the context of marketing? How dare they! Of course you can buy coverage." Again, most of your arguments are contrived to begin with, so if this isn't what you meant, then you only have yourself to blame. My !vote stands as is. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit I didn't make the alleged unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review? Polygnotus (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my understanding is that you did make such an assumption, but we have high-quality sources here, and your fixation on one part of one sentence of my rationale is clear evidence you're missing the forest for the trees. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Polygnotus is concerned that you don't understand his rationale of concern over affiliate links. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They should be, because their argument is total nonsense. There is a world of difference between sources with affiliate links and the sources WP: INDEPENDENT attempts to exclude. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once in a while someone shows up who claims that the words in the PaGs actually have a secret other meaning, which diverges from how any English speaker would interpret them. They'll say that they and they alone know how to interpret the mystical coded language. Following these prophets is very dangerous. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. The article does not have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references appear to be either trivial mentions, routine coverage (e.g., app listings, short reviews), or press releases. Yolandagonzales (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    App listings are not routine coverage. Is there a reason you believe they are?
    And seven paragraphs is not short. And les affaires is independent and their entire article is about the app. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to what Aaron said. If it was a directory of apps (e.g. sourceforge), your argument would make sense, but these are independent reviews that are more than a trivial mention. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - CNN Underscored does have a rigorous editorial process. However, it still receives commission for products it ultimately decides to write about. As such, it cannot be considered independent as they have a stake in people reading and purchasing what they review. The Les Affaires reference looks good after a quick Google Translate. I am not sure there is a connection with the author other than speculation but if there is I would be open to hearing more. Can anyone point out WP:THREE that talk about the app in-depth (and do not have any type of stake in the game with affiliate links)?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    les affaires, USA Today, Mobile Syrup Aaron Liu (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing The USA Today source is 6 sentences. Polygnotus (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that meets SigCov. I chose it over the CBC article because the information feels more "processed". Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu In my opinion 6 sentences in a list of similar stuff is not indepth sigcov. Jen O'Brien's articles are branded content, which is not the same as independent journalism. While I am not theologically opposed to lifestyle writing (or whatever you wanna call it), calling content marketing 'independent journalism' is a bridge too far in my view. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any policy basis for that opinion? It directly addresses the subject in detail.
    What do you mean "branded content", and what principle of independence does that article fail? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Branded content and Content marketing.
    Is there any policy basis for that opinion? I assume you mean PaG basis, or PaGaE if you include essays. We only have a few policies. See WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:COMMON. Note that the fact that someone bothered to write something down does not make it more true, and that there has never been a sane way to determine CONLEVEL and re-order stuff based on that. Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By "that opinion" I was referring to 6 sentences in a list of similar stuff is not indepth sigcov, sorry for being unclear.
    I don't see anything in the link you provided that shows O'Brien's articles are funded by advertisers. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu I mean it is pretty hard to go in-depth in 6 sentences. Is there a phobia for ending sentences? Polygnotus (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Product reviews are fine for establishing notability. However, according to WP:PRODUCTREV, it must be more than a list. It must show that the product was actually used and in the case of USA Today, that does not appear to be the case so could not be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the MobileSyrup article a product review, and I think the CBC first-person–POV article clearly shows use. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who called MobileSyrup a product review? I literally stated "USA Today."--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got that you were talking about USA Today but b/c you said there was only one source presented that satisfies the criteria below I assumed you thought you'd addressed all three sources. Am I correct in assuming the one source that meets ORGCRIT you mentioned is the les affaires one, and could you explain what's the problem with the remaining source? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the online review industry isn't not built on kickbacks and quid pro quo arrangements... but I'm also not not failing to avoid saying it isn't, you know? Polygnotus (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very bold claim without a source you're implying against a crown corporation that doesn't even use any affiliate links. Failure of the Canadian public broadcaster to properly disclose its sources of revenue and conflicts of interest or screen contributors for such things would approximate corruption. Where does it end? Are you seriously "not not failing to avoid, y'know" conjuring fingers towards every single product review out there, for which as CNMall points out has guidelines regulating use? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking in very general terms about an industry. Also I used enough negation that I have plausible deniability that even I don't know what I am saying anymore. Polygnotus (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you even saying it about specific articles written by this specific person? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am? I thought the sentence started with I'm not saying the online review industry?? Polygnotus (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, you said O'Brien's articles were branded content. Then, when I asked why, you said #c-Polygnotus-20250711221800-Aaron_Liu-20250711213900, using grammatical structures designed to bring things up while being able to deny bringing such things up. I do not see a possible reason for those two sentences to be said other than you wanting said thing to enter the conversation. In fact you even used the wrong number of negations in the second sentence of your comment to say "I'm also [not cancels out not] [failing to avoid means you are] saying it isn't [not built on kickbacks and quid pro quo arrangements]," hence "I'm also saying the industry is built on kickbacks and quid pro quo arrangements." Again, this was in the context of answering "Why are O'Brien's articles branded content?", or more specifically "What does O'Brien's output have in common with branded content?" So, again, I ask: If not, then why did you make that comment? What point did you intend to make? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron, I love you buddy (as a friend), but perhaps this discussion is not the most productive use of our time? I'm just weird. Maybe that explains things. And thanks for confirming I have plausible deniability. Also we probably passed the badger(x3) stage a while back and maybe its time for other people to voice their opinions. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:29, 14 July 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNU coding standards

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

I can't find any independent, significant coverage of these standards; suggest a merge to GNU Project. The one book cited doesn't seem to mention these standards by name, so it seems the sentence they support are OR. Toadspike [Talk] 06:29, 28 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 merge‎ to GNU coding standards. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gnits standards

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

I don't see any independent coverage of these standards; suggest a merge or redirect to GNU Project (I would suggest GNU coding standards, but that doesn't seem notable either...) Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? If so, to which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 5 July 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.

OTT Middleware

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

Promotional, sparsely referenced, author refuses AFC review. What refs that do exist fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep . Per the above evaluation by @Goodboyjj , several sources support the subject and are reliable. I also agree that the page needs improvement, specially if AI used. Another option is to draft it so someone or the original creator can improve.Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of this article. The article covers a widely recognized middleware technology that is well-supported by numerous academic sources. If there are any concerns about the content, I’m open to revising and improving it accordingly. Mmarietaa (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources cited in the article as well as by Goodboyjj are random low-quality websites. None of the academic sources actually mention middleware, and I can't find any that do. The only serious sources I can find about OTT/over-the-top middleware are random business news about awarded contracts, acquisitions, and so on, which don't help at all with writing an article about the thing. Even if the topic were notable on its own, the current article wouldn't be of much help. As mentioned above, it's likely written with an LLM, but in any case it's got huge swathes of text with basically no relevant quality sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about varied terminology. While "OTT middleware" might not be the only term used, the article focuses on the functional definition – the critical "glue" components (CMS, SMS, DRM, CDN integration, etc.) essential for any OTT service. The academic citations, though sometimes using broader terms like "OTT platform" or "backend solutions," describe these exact functionalities and their importance. My aim is to show that the concept and its components are widely discussed and notable in reliable sources, even if the precise word "middleware" isn't always present. I will refine the article to explicitly connect these broader terms to the core middleware functions, ensuring clarity on the subject's scope and notability. Mmarietaa (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author, I've closely followed this discussion. I have cleaned up the document to make it less AI and removed content that is unsourced.
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 05:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FusionReactor

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

From my contested PROD: Fails WP:NSOFT: after searching GBooks, GScholar, and even the "ColdFusion Developer's Journal" on Internet Archive, there is just no independent coverage of this application beyond trivial mentions. None of the current sources in the article are reliable and independent.

I recently reverted edits made by a COI editor, which didn't contain any good sources either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 3 July 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.

Applied Intuition

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

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - RichT|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The routine coverage standard is usually used to dismiss articles from PR firms that have close financial ties to the companies they report about. Reuters is not a PR firm, and they don't report about every fundraising event from every startup. The nominator has the implication backwards: routine coverage can come in the form of fundraising news, but not all fundraising news is routine coverage.
And independent of all this, This case study that already appears in the article can clearly be used to establish notability. I would need to see something more than a bare assertion that the sources in the article constitute "trivial reporting" in order to change my !vote. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I can't agree with assertions that every source is valuations and funding rounds; in fact most are not. After looking over the list of references it seems to me that about two-thirds of sources cover substantial business activities rather than financial reporting. For example: Harvard Business School case study on the company's business model, Bloomberg's analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation technology and industry challenges, coverage of strategic partnerships with major automakers like Isuzu, Axios coverage of military AI products, Breaking Defense analysis of acquisitions, and a recent CNBC piece discussing the company's AI technology and dual-use applications. These sources provide exactly the type of in-depth critical analysis and commentary from major newspapers, trusted academic institutions, and high-quality mainstream websites that establish notability. I think this article definitely should be kept. Soxfanruthian (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM text collapsed
  • Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

The nominator's WP:CORPTRIV argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the available sources and fails to recognize substantial coverage that clearly establishes notability under WP:CORP. The claim that all coverage consists of "routine business reporting" ignores multiple sources providing detailed analysis of the company's technology, strategic significance, and industry impact.

Academic recognition establishes clear notability: Harvard Business School published a comprehensive case study on Applied Intuition (ref #5). Academic institutions do not create detailed business case studies for companies lacking significant industry impact or innovative business models. This represents exactly the type of substantial, analytical coverage that WP:CORP requires and directly contradicts claims of trivial coverage.

Technology-focused coverage beyond financial reporting: Multiple sources provide substantial analysis of business operations and technological significance:

  • Bloomberg's 2018 detailed analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation challenges and the company's role in addressing industry-wide testing limitations (ref #12)
  • VentureBeat's comprehensive coverage of off-road autonomy technology launch with technical specifications and market analysis (ref #2)
  • Specialized trade publication coverage in ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle International focusing on machine learning data operations and technical capabilities (ref #26)
  • Recent substantial coverage of the June 2025 OpenAI strategic partnership, including detailed analysis from Bloomberg examining the technological implications and industry significance of integrating large language models into vehicle intelligence platforms (ref #9)

Strategic industry partnerships demonstrate operational significance: Coverage of partnerships with major automakers provides substantial analysis of business activities that clearly exceed routine reporting:

  • Nikkei Asia's detailed coverage of Isuzu partnership for Level 4 self-driving trucks (ref #23)
  • Automotive News Europe's analysis of TRATON partnership for software-defined trucks (ref #24)
  • Specialized German automotive publication coverage of Audi partnership following Porsche collaboration (ref #22)

Defense sector recognition for national security applications: Recent coverage demonstrates expansion into critical national security applications:

  • Axios provides substantial analysis of military AI products and strategic significance (ref #19)
  • Bloomberg recognizes the company among "10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025" based on technological capabilities (ref #17)
  • Breaking Defense covers EpiSci acquisition with detailed analysis of AI dogfighting capabilities and military applications (ref #29)

Sustained coverage across multiple years and topics: The reference list spans 2018-2025 with coverage from major publications focusing on technology developments, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and industry recognition—not just funding announcements. This sustained attention across multiple business cycles and topics demonstrates the type of ongoing coverage that WP:CORP requires.

Financial coverage as evidence of significance: While the nominator dismisses funding announcements as routine, the sustained financial coverage from major publications like Bloomberg, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal spanning multiple funding rounds over seven years actually demonstrates the type of ongoing attention that indicates notability. WP:CORPTRIV does not prohibit all financial coverage—it prohibits trivial financial coverage. When major business publications consistently cover a company's growth trajectory across multiple years, this represents substantial coverage of significant business developments, not routine announcements.

The nominator's assertion that partnerships with 18 of the top 20 global automakers and expansion into defense applications constitute mere "routine business reporting" misapplies WP:CORPTRIV. These represent exactly the "significant business activities" and "major corporate developments" that the policy explicitly recognizes as notable. The Harvard Business School case study alone provides the substantial, analytical coverage that clearly exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the WP:CORPTRIV threshold.

This article meets WP:CORP through multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of technology, industry impact, and business significance that extends well beyond routine financial reporting.

Request for nomination withdrawal: Given the substantial evidence demonstrating clear notability under WP:CORP, I respectfully request that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination. The article is supported by multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage that extends well beyond routine business reporting, including academic recognition, detailed technology analysis, and sustained industry coverage across multiple years and topics. Cal-batman (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment table would address the disagreement here about the quality of the sources provided in the article and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here's an analysis of sources (omitting primary sources or GHITS type references) with emphasis on those articles that others above claim to meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the references based on funding and valuation are junk. Here's why. The $250m funding round with a $6b valuation are based on this Press Release dated March 12, 2024. Similarly, the series d media churn is all based on this PR from 2021. The latest series f is based on this. Notice that those references have the same date as the announcement (or later). Lets not be naive here - this is how marketing works. There is no original content in any of those articles. If some of the Keep !voters above disagree, lets discuss - post a link to one of the articles and point out the paragraphs containing original content.
-
Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent Content? In-depth? Overall establishes notability per NCORP
"Applied Intuition, whose software tests self-driving cars, grabs $40 million". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs as part of the PR around their series B round (same date, quotes, etc) No no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
"Inside one of Silicon Valley's most celebrated rituals: raising cash". Washington Post. 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No There no in-depth information *about the company*
"Qasar Younis and Peter Ludwig of Applied Intuition: A startup with design in mind". Greatness by Floodgate (Podcast). Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No It is an interview and relies entirely on information from the founders
"2025 Tech Defense Startups to Watch". Bloomberg Features. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No A company profile based on summarising existing company information No Four sentences is insufficient for CORPDEPTH
"Transportation: Most Innovative Companies 2025". Fast Company. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 Yes No A mention-in-passing, single sentence
"Applied Intuition and military AI partnership". Axios. 2025-05-20. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No The article merely summarises a company announcement No Insufficient in-depth information about the company
No Relies entirely on an interview with the founder
No A mention in passing that contains no in-depth information about the company
No Relies entirely on a visit to the company's office and information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition neue Partnerschaft mit Audi". Automobilwoche. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
No This also relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
No Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
No Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
No Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition to buy autonomous trucking SPAC Embark for $71M". TechCrunch. 2023-05-25. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition takes flight, sets sail in acquiring EpiSci". Breaking Defense. February 2025. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs No no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
No There is no in-depth information *about the company*
It is difficult to find articles on this very valuable company that meet NCORP right now. I've omitted the case study because I cannot locate a copy to read, but from experience, not all case studies hosted by HBS meet the criteria but if someone wants to link to a non-paywalled version I'll give it a read. HighKing++ 20:47, 11 July 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TabPFN

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

Fails WP:PROMO and contains likely AI-generated content (see, for example the bulleted lists of "features" and "limitations"). Several of the sources under "applications" are poorly cited research articles which I am not sure meet the criteria for inclusion and certainly don't meet the criteria for notability. Writing quality and encyclopedic tone throughout. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlessandrobonettoPL: Notability aside, I just checked all the sources in the "Performance" section and not a single one of them appears to support the claim that was stated in the article. Reference 7 that you mentioned, does not even mention TabPFN. Maybe these are from a previous draft of the article. The primary issue here in my view is quality and possible AI-generated content. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for your input but it seemed you were mostly concerned about notability and now that is not the issue anymore. The reference numbers were updated in the latest edit to the article. The Performance section has been reviewed by an external editor (@WeWake and can be easily revised if needed. Regarding AI-generated content, could you specify any particular sections you'd like to flag? These days, all content can be "possibly AI-generated", so if you have specific concerns we can address them. Also, Wikipedia is a place for every contributor to create the World's best source of information, so if you're not happy with the quality of a text, other than commenting on it you're more than welcome to edit the source and help us distribute this additional piece of knowledge to the world, especially given your valuable expertise in the subject matter :) AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sure, happy to help. No my concern is not with notability but rather with promotion and article quality, including the references. I’m concerned with how the article was developed given we ended up with a performance section where the citations provided don’t correspond to the claims. I can check the history for who added the section but if you have any ideas… thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for contributing to the article! So can you confirm now that the article meets the standards for Wikipedia? Any additional edits required? AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not yet. Can you please let me know what happened with the "Performance' section? How did it occur that none of the references provided support the information in the text? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Caleb Stanford, I didn't write that section so I can't say. I will revise it today so you can review it soon AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Caleb Stanford, I was reviewing the section and thought it would just be better to remove it entirely. Let me know what you think about it AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Etzedek24, what would you like to see differently on the article? What should new edits focus on? AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:AlessandrobonettoPL, see WP:RELIST; with only 1 keep voter, Etzedek24 is likely relisting because "the discussion has only a few participants". Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Thank you for pointing this out, I meant to reply and forgot. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also @AlessandrobonettoPL, I would encourage you to address any issues regarding the content and sourcing of the article on the talk page, rather than here. Part of the reason I relisted this is that there is a lot of discussion about the article itself, not the deletion discussion, and it is somewhat hard to navigate. I may collapse some of it into dropdown boxes to improve readability. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:08, 2 July 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 02:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltego

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

nn software. Zero independent sources --Altenmann >talk 15:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:02, 28 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! 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. It would have helped if participants had shared their source analysis with the entire discussion group. Right now, we are just left with opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fluentgrid

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a PUBLIC/WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. Current page is just a WP:SPAM, full of company products and services links WP:NOTADVERT. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific source analysis would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a a source eval please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 04:36, 4 July 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&oldid=1298765004"