Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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

Ava (EMR)

Ava (EMR) (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 article is a brochure for an "electronic medical record platform" that isn't even a decade old. This appears to be generated by an LLM as well. I can't see a world in which this satisfies the notability criteria for companies. MediaKyle (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is no place for LLM generated ads. CabinetCavers (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons:
Independent journalists with decades of experience covering Canadian healthcare have covered them.
Ava was named nationally a “Company to Watch” by Deloitte in its Technology Fast 50 program and received coverage from relevant media.
Canada Health Infoway listed Ava as one of its 2025 Vendor Innovation Program winners, which is also national recognition. A company’s age is not a determining factor on Wikipedia.
TheDocOck (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Realized this is a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Industries. Have speedied. MediaKyle (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article clearly written with an LLM. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangomint

Mangomint (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. To satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline, a company needs to have multiple reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, and these sources should not just regurgitate press releases, company announcements (including product announcements), executive interviews, or whatever else the company has to say about itself.

The mention in "Best Workplaces 2025" fails WP:ORGTRIV. Every other source in the article relies almost entirely on company announcements and interviews with executives, failing WP:ORGIND. I couldn't find any better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G-Portugol

G-Portugol (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)

Not yet notable per WP:Product or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only routine academic coverage, and nothing in GBooks. The Manzano book cited is an 80-page self-published reference, with the shown ISBN not found in searches of Karlsruhe or Worldcat. The project itself was moribund in 2010, then nine minor commits were made to master between this month and last. The merge proposal to a non-existent article looks like it's about to be procedurally closed shortly. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two books in Portuguese:
- Algoritmos - Lógica para Desenvolvimento de Programação Imperativa de Computadores
- G-Portugol Programação de Computadores em Português
The project is being maintained in Debian. It is included in all the latest stable versions of Debian. It is a stable project, which is why it has few changes. Recently, the “gportugol” GitHub repository was created to host the contributions that were previously only available in Debian, as well as to welcome new contributors.
An article about it has existed on the Portuguese Wikipedia since 2007. Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the publisher of those books? The listings do not give obvious information. -- Reconrabbit 17:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Algoritmos - Lógica para Desenvolvimento de Programação Imperativa de Computadores
Publisher: LTC
Publication Date: April 8, 2025
Edition: 30th
Language: Portuguese
Number of Pages: 424 pages
ISBN-10: 6558110075
ISBN-13: 978-6558110071
- G-Portugol Programação de Computadores em Português
Publisher: Propes Vivens
Publication Date: 2017
Edition: 1st
Language: Portuguese
Number of Pages: 80
ISBN: 978-85-916492-9-7 Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of the first book listed is LTC, which appears to be a well-established publishing house in Brazil. The book is about algorithms for imperative programming, not about G-Portugol, but its description on Amazon, roughly translated, says: "The appendices present the resolution of some fixation exercises and examples of coding written programs interpreters of algorithmic languages, such as VisuAlg, Portugol Studio, Portugol Online, G-Portugol and ILA".
Propes Vivens, publisher of the second book listed, is Prof. Manzano's own self-publishing imprint. Wikishovel (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codimg

AfDs for this article:
Codimg (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 believe this fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. no SIGCOV. This article was previously nominated and deleted. Equine-man (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nacsport Video Analysis Software

Nacsport Video Analysis Software (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 does not even come close to meet WP:GNG. promotional edits by COI editor. Majority of links point towards mentions of the software. Previously deleted and recreated. Equine-man (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only significant coverage of the software not from the company itself is from La Provincia. I don't see mentions of it being used by various leagues as evidence of notability. -- Reconrabbit 20:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: Hi, I'm the original author of this article and it already went through this process several years ago. I originally wrote the article about the company Nacsport. It was decided by the Wikipedia community that the "company" Nacsport was not notable. That is why it was deleted previously. I then worked with the community to get the article to a point where it was acceptable, the first change being to move the focus from Nacsport being a company to it being a piece of software. It was decided by the community that as a piece of software, the article was acceptable and it passed notability after considering the size of the soccer clubs Nacsport worked with.
  • Regarding the COI mentioned above - at the time of writing, there was no COI. I wrote the article because I wanted to learn a new skill. Nacsport was one of the few international companies operating where I live in the Canary Islands. I chose to write about precisely because, in my opinion, it IS a notable company. Subsequently, after managing to get the article published, they offered me a job. So, I accept that NOW there is a COI, but before, there wasn't. Because of this, I have not edited the article since I got the job. The only thing I changed yesterday was the most current software version, which I didn't think would be a problem -- DuncRitchie
  • I have reread this five times over and I really have no idea what you expect anyone here to do with this information. The very first sentence of the AfD rationale is "This does not even come close to meet [sic] WP: GNG" and not a single sentence of this two paragraph rant addresses the lack of proper sources, which is the fundamental issue with the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Praktika (software)

Praktika (software) (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:NORG. Also, entirely promotional and no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complies with WP:NORG as 24 independent reference sources are provided as of today's date Alice8961 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also seems like it complies with WP:SUSTAINED notability as the company got mentioned in several independent education lists and ranks in top 5 free apps, top 5 grossing apps and top 3 featured apps in the category of language learning according to AppMagic https://appmagic.rocks/top-charts/apps?date=2025-10-01&tag=36 Alice8961 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onion.run

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

The only source for the site is a Medium article which is WP:SPS posted 1 day ago. There was also an article on DeshCrux.com, a website I have only seen used by paid article writers, but that article has mysteriously vanished. I have not been able to even load the website itself since seeing this article and can find no archive of it looking like the screenshot so on top of not being notable the subject of the article already doesn't exist. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article author improperly closed this as keep, signing as a different editor. Ultraodan (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They tried the same thing on the other AfD I made although didn't sign off as a different editor (diff link) D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets WP:WEB notability. Onion.run is an open-source Tor gateway, similar in relevance to Tor2web, with clear technological and encyclopedic value. The content is neutral, verifiable, and non-promotional, so it should be kept and improved, not deleted. !Bech07 (talk)

It doesn't meet WP:WEB notability though, maybe you should read the policy. It was created a few days ago and has no coverage in independent reliable sources. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of sources + no actual reasoning beyond handwaves of "but it has clear technological value!!!" (whatever the heck that means) = no weight should be given to this !vote when closing. Absolute nonsense written by someone trying to save their own article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability of the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adora Nwodo

Adora Nwodo (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 see how she meets the notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Processor Control Region

Processor Control Region (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. There are brief mentions of this struct in a few books about the NT kernel, but no details anywhere. The longest descriptions I could find are in "Practical Reverse Engineering" and "Windows Internals, Part 1 (7th edition)"; in both cases it is described with only a short paragraph and a layout dump from a debugger. NoLightsNoCameras (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TraceX Guard

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

The app is not available on the app store, the promo is all paid for PR sites. The official website is a very barebones landing page. I think it's a clear case of WP:PROMO D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The article meets the notability criteria for software WP:SOFT as TraceX Guard and Initive has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable media outlets, including Prabhat Khabar, The Hindu, India Today, The Indian Express, Times of India, and Digital Journal.

These sources discuss its AI-based malware protection system, its user insurance policy, and its positioning among leading competitors such as Avast, Quick Heal.

The app has been recognized as part of India’s “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiatives, addressing the national issue of malware distributed via WhatsApp and Telegram. It has verifiable mentions in reputable English and Hindi-language media highlighting its technological relevance.

satisfying both WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Therefore, the article should be kept.

— Bech07 (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Initive"? It's not mentioned in the article or any of the sources.
Let's go through the sources!
The first four are about mobile malware and scams in general, not about TraceX so these can be skipped over.
There rest of the sources come from TraceX's PR campaign in September and October. All the articles would not be considered reliable sources (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) and have very similar content. Because these sources are all basically TraceX press releases they would not be considered independent of the subject either.
I would also like to say I think your response here is AI generated bar the last line. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it’s true that TraceX Guard’s distribution is currently limited to direct APK downloads, availability on app stores is not a requirement for notability under WP:SOFT or WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bech07 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I agree with the source assessment above, and I cannot find any reliable sources myself. The reliable sources currently in the article are not about TraceX at all, but about the problem of malware APKs in general. Unless other reliable and independent sourcing can be identified this page should be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've removed the digital journal link; it's a well known SEO/paid placement site that takes all comers and is often abused here. No need to even consider it. Concur with the analysis above by Mr. Dissident, and I was not able to quickly locate anything of substance. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QA & UX Manager

QA & UX Manager (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)

Orphan article with no real content — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is a big concern here because there are no reliable, independent sources(excluding blogs and other self-published sources) that establish notability for this in particular. At most, it would maybe merit a subsection in the Quality Assurance article. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Publishing System

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

lack of notability and reliable external sources Gdarin (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, writing about the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica (McHenry) or questioning the credibility of his account, published on the professionally maintained website of the general counsel of the Encyclopedia's publisher, is truly bizarre. Will we also consider IBM's software lists unreliable? Will we consider the information about several over 400-page manuals for this system, or the exorbitant prices for this software, to be fabricated? --Wiklol (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natech

Natech (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 company. All the sources on the article are either republishing of press releases about new products/changing employees, or about events tangential to the organization, but no independent significant coverage establishing that the company its self is notable. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- have to agree with noms points regards the citations, my additional searching also shows this trend.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks sufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources, fails (WP:N). RolandSimon (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Sorry, but have good sources. Ovedc (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leena AI

Leena AI (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)

There is no claim to notability per WP:NCORP in the article, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to find any sourcing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Interviews with the founders, press releases, sponsored content, and run-of-the-mill announcements about funding and other everyday activities do not show how the company is notable. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovable (company)

Lovable (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)

Fails WP:NORG at present. Amigao (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why this was recreated after a recent deletion. Existing coverage is largely routine business coverage + non-independent quoting of CEO/other tech executives. Beyond the Forbes article I don't think the sources provided by 4meter4 meet requirements for WP:NORG and even the forbes article quotes heavily from an interview with the CEO.

  • TechCrunch Not independent as it is is largely quotes from the CEO/other tech people without little to no independent analysis.
  • BusinessInsider Not entirely independent as it relies overmuch on quotes from CEO, though there is some added thought about traffic to the app.
  • bdtechtalks Is a blog post and not great for reliability/verifying independence.
  • Bloomberg Paywalled, but the opening lines make it clear they're using quotes from the CEO from an appearance on Bloomberg TV so not promising.
  • euronews Mostly quotes company numbers + talks about routine business (funding rounds). No independent analysis.
  • thenextweb Routine coverage of business growth with many quotes from CEO and not necessarily independent. Uncertain whether thenextweb is considered reliable either.
  • Techcrunch 2 Only a passing mention as the article focuses on a different company (Anything)

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the links had pipes preventing them from working; I've removed those. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's transformative text and secondary analysis in many of these. It's not all interviews, so I disagree with your source assessment as entirely failing WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CDC MarketFirst

CDC MarketFirst (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)

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is software seems has been through a few ownership changes from when it was a standalone company and clearly has been just a software package for the last 20 years. I recently updated the article to remove a lot of promotional material and clean it up. It appears mostly defunct, but seems to still be supported as legacy software package by its owner. Given the number of references, I believe it meets notability, if only from a historic perspective. Sargdub (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Interesting. If it were solely for that reason, I would be in favor of attempting to keep the article. User:Deathnotekll2 User:Deathnotekll2 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, at it's currently written the article is unacceptable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. The software also contains many unsupported claims to its successes that can't be completely verified by the sources it relies upon. Many of the links are broken or inaccessible - such as those from Reuters and Business Wire - rendering any dedicated verification difficult. It appears the software did exist and was successful, but the article would need to be written again (especially to obtain new versions of its sources). User:Deathnotekll2

Intelligent Decision System

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

No notability, due to zero independent sources. The only sources that mention the software package are papers by its author, Jian-Bo Yang. Blindly deprodded by Kvng, so now everybody's time needs to be wasted with an AfD. Tercer (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. In a WP:BEFORE check I could only find mention of this software in papers by the author, meaning there is no WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources to satisfy the [WP:GNG]]. Katzrockso (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much trust we can put into a negative WP:BEFORE check; searching is confounded by the fact that the software has a generic name very similar to its genre. Do you have a technique for addressing that challenge? ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using quotation marks around "Intelligent Decision System" prevents search results for "Intelligent Decision Support System" from showing up, which is what I did. Katzrockso (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that now. I have struck my keep !vote. I have tried searching, but that is difficult because the generic name of the software is so close to its genre. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IZ3D

AfDs for this article:
IZ3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to demonstrate significant independent coverage per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most references are bare URLs or press releases, and there is limited evidence of enduring notability beyond product announcements. The company was a short-lived 3D display manufacturer defunct since 2012, with minimal lasting impact on the field. SanneMonte (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It appears that iZ3D received a good amount of attention when its screen was first released given its novelty. Even if it didn't catch on, I think the notability of the unique product stands and this article definitely doesn't suffer from the self-promotion of many org/corp articles. Additional reliable/in depth sources reviewing the product: Gizmodo, PCMag, TechCrunch. There is also a possibility of merging into an article that discusses 3D monitors as an alt to deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxx

Oxx (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)

WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. None of the sources satisfy the standards of WP:ORGTRIV. Most are primary or not reliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). Niafied (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the concern, but if you look at the sources of some of the other Wikipedia articles on venture capital firms, they do tend to be from tech media publications or similar (Tech.eu, TechCrunch etc.) and most of the information in the articles relates to funding rounds which the venture capital firm either raised or contributed to. I would claim that is just the nature of the business and where the most important information on venture capital firms can be found. Some examples: Acton Capital, Newfund, Iris Capital, and many more at List of venture capital firms. Commissaress (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping the page. Plenty of venture capital firms do get signficant coverage in reliable pages. If there are other pages that don't meet those standards, they will likely be nominated for deletion eventually. Since you're being paid for your contributions, you might find it difficult to objectively assess the company's notability. Niafied (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agendrix

Agendrix (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 appears to be a brochure for a relatively run-of-the-mill company - only been around for ten years, all we have under "History" is your typical funding announcements and subsequent acquisition by The Citation Group. I don't think anything here satisfies the depth of sourcing required. MediaKyle (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only routine business announcements found; fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete globe and mail and similare are definitely routine announcements, nothing to pass NCORP. Never-ending string (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article satisfies WP:ORGCRIT, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:GNG, and is fully consistent with WP:NCORP. The company has received significant, independent, and analytical coverage from multiple reliable sources, including L’actualité, La Tribune and Le Nouvelliste. These articles provide in-depth business analysis over several years (2020–2025), which goes well beyond the non understandable “routine announcements” mentioned in the votes above. When the references are actually reviewed, they clearly meet Wikipedia’s sourcing and depth criteria for organizational notability.--Jean-PierreCL (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the 3 sources presented above by Jean-PierreCL , would make the subject notable. RolandSimon (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that Jean-PierreCL is the author of this article. I'm not convinced by the sources presented. MediaKyle (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kissflow

Kissflow (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. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Cryptofiler

Acid Cryptofiler (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)

Page has multiple issues that have not been resolved, starting 8 years ago; the article content is not well-cited and the topic does not appear to be notable. Twillfactor (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 21:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, problems have been pointed out but apparently they haven't been strong enough to convince an editor to argue for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&oldid=1320998989"