Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folderly

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 12:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folderly

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PROD declined. My original reason was "No reliable sources found in my search, none used in the article discuss the software at length. Forbes Contributor pieces can't be used, press-releases are not reliable sources, user-generated ratings sites are not reliable sources.". Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The PROD was removed by an IP with the comment "looks reliable with enough good sources in Cyrillic sources I guess, some ratings have to be excluded from the page". The references are routine start-up coverage about Belkins launch of this product for avoiding spam-filtering of mailout campaigns, along with founder interviews, lists of available jobs, etc. Neither these nor anything found on my searches demonstrate attained notability for this product or Belkins, whether under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (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. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 11 November 2023 (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.