Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Software

DIIOP

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Systems

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

The article on Cora Systems lacks sufficient independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines Loewstisch (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this <200-person software company meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article (and those that I can find outside it) are either ROTM "press release republished in local or specialist news outlets" (of a type to be expected for any company of its type), are trivial passing mentions (like random "name drops" in an Oireachtas debate or Limerick County Council report), or (in some cases) do not mention the subject org at all. The clear WP:PAID / WP:COI / WP:PROMO overtones, in the article's creation and its tone/intent, are also very very difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources discussing the subject in depth (WP:SIGCOV). COI and Promotional in tone as said by Guliolopez. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Project

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

Defunct website that doesn't seem to have sufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability as noted in talk page. I do notice there are some now removed (negative) reviews on the website but these seem to be a very surface level and the coverage is rather short. Therefore I am nominating this for discussion. Imcdc Contact 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and California. Imcdc Contact 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avolution

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

Created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced for 17 years. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seem to be a few companies using this name [1], [2]... I don't think it's the avocado company, I'm not really sure what the company in this article does. I don't see sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. I don't think AfD was needed in this case. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linotype-Hell DaVinci

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotica (software)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IFIP Working Group 2.10

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirisys

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GSS Infotech

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, funding, acquisitions news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's little more than a holding company. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karbon (software)

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

Nonnotble unreferenced piece of software --Altenmann >talk 06:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mastek

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, share price, profit/financial reporting, merger, demerger capacity expansion, overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the way the article is written feels like it’s mainly trying to promote or advertise something. Wikipedia:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [3][4][5], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EMMS (media player)

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

Seems blatantly non-notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. Note that EMMS is also an abbreviation for Electronic Media Management System, which muddles search results a lot. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spacemacs

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

Cool, but not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Emacs

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom's github repository has 20k+ stars. For reference, Linux has 192k, spacemacs has 23k. Doom is a popular configuration framework for Emacs these days, and I don't think it's worth removing. Kuromedayo (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociated press

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already has ample references to significant coverage in reliable sources, including The Jargon File and BYTE Magazine. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock (text editor)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sawfish (window manager)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant independent coverage exists in the books A Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux by Mark G. Sobell (O'Reilly, 2003) and Mastering Linux by Arman Danesh and ‎Michael Jang (Wiley, 2006). There's maybe a dozen pages in the former and one in the latter. A Google Books search shows dozens of other results; most of them seem to be brief mentions but I didn't carefully check all of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planner (program)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cmus

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

Notability? TheAwesome Hwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find links to gethub and reddit, some videos on this software, nothing for reviews or anything we need for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Some blogs though, and a brief mention in a book. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources; results give us unreliable websites and guides like [10] and [11]. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think keeping the article does not hurt anyone, I can also improve it if that is the issue. Please bare with me, I do not participate often in these discussions and do not know all the rules TarkinTor (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REVTeX

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, an inappropriate nomination with zero justification provided. A massive number of sources exist, the package has been around and in use for decades. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for @TheAwesomeHwyh: REVTex is one of the main variants of TeX and LaTeX. It is very widely used in the Astronomy and Physics communities, and sometimes in others. Almost all (probably all) the top journals accept papers formatted using it, for instance Physical Review Letters, Nature (journal), Science (journal) as just three. I suggest withdrawing your AfD.

N.B., I personally hate it and use Microsoft Word, but that does not make it unnotable. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borealis (software company)

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

The organisation is not meeting GNG and NCORP as it has only dependent media links and press-releases Norlk (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a Draft:Borealis (software company) which was declined at AfC later in the day after this copy had been placed in mainspace. AllyD (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a brochure-like article about a company's product proposition, supported by listings, announcement-based and passing mention references. As it stands, it lacks the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Possibly, though, the user's Draft can be left for them to develop, with the proviso that it would have to be submitted through AfC and not simply moved/copied again into mainspace. AllyD (talk) 12:38, 18 April 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.

Vigor (software)

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

Extreme lack of notability. Stub article. Actual code is just a realization of an idea from a comic strip, and not meant for actual use. Hexware (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hexware (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some references on the article talk page. PC Chip is probably a good source, although I can't easily find the article being referred to. Linuxticker.com ([12]) seems okay, and the Salon.com piece ([13]) might be usable even though there's no consensus on reliability at WP:SALON.COM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum (software)

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not demonstrated. The only references are a couple of wallet reviews and technical mentions which may be insufficient per [WP:GNG] and [WP:ORGCRITE]. In particular, there is little to no coverage in mainstream media beyond routine crypto-sector coverage. Per [WP:NONCRYPTO], sources solely from cryptocurrency-focused outlets or passing mentions cannot establish notability Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the history of the article. The article already was nominated for deletion and after discussion it was agreed to keep it. Then someone simply removed almost everything from the article. This is an important software in the cryptocurrencies area. Stokito (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Electrum is widely used in the cryptocurrency community, but popularity alone does not establish notability on Wikipedia. As outlined in WP:GNG, notability requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. While the article was previously kept, the current content and references do not demonstrate the kind of in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion. If there are reliable, independent sources from the prior discussion that meet these standards, they should be reintroduced and clearly cited. Without such sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Pollia (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollia what is [WP:NONCRYPTO] supposed to represent here? There is no policy/essay/guideline under WP:NONCRYPTO and although there are some discussions about reliability of certain outlets there isn't PAG (to my knowledge) that says all cryptocurrency-focused outlets are not accepted for notability. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I was referring to WP:NONCRYPTO, which is an accepted guideline discussing how cryptocurrency-related articles should be held to the same notability standards as any other topic. It’s true there is no policy excluding all cryptocurrency-focused outlets, but the guideline emphasizes that they must meet WP:RS standards and demonstrate significant, independent coverage. If you feel the article’s sources meet these criteria, we should carefully examine them. However, at this time, the sources provided don’t seem to establish notability under these guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources already present in the article are sufficient to show notability, along with additional sources discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet. In-depth reviews in mainstream publications are not "routine coverage". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the current sources demonstrate notability, could you identify which specific references meet WP:GNG by providing significant, independent coverage? The article presently relies heavily on niche or cryptocurrency-focused outlets that do not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS. Without additional coverage in more widely recognized, independent publications, it’s difficult to argue that the topic is notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Techradar review and Money.com review are reliable, mainstream publications with in-depth coverage. Although not in the article, additional sources were highlighted at the last AfD, particularly SmartSE's comment. All of the sources in that comment except for Business Insider are generally reliable, and none of the sources are "crypto-focused" publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note It seems that the renaming of this article may have been an attempt to better align the title with Wikipedia’s guidelines on naming conventions. However, while the new title might reflect more common usage or improved clarity, it’s important to ensure that the content of the article and its sources meet Wikipedia’s core policies, such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deegree

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. 0 sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. MidnightMayhem 14:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google Scholar turns up multiple reliable references —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightware

AfDs for this article:

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose due to inaccurate nomination this article needs to be updated and there is missing information, but it is not fair to say that it should be deleted because it is not notable and relies on promotional material or self published sources when the sources used are TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. There are some self published sources that could be removed, and could have been removed by the nominator faster than creating this AfD. At the same time there are plenty of other RS that could be added to enhance the article and improve it such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which all support that this firm is notable according to WP:NCORP Nayyn (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources meet NCORP? Specifically, which sources contain "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* and not just regurgitated company info or based on quotes from execs? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 15 April 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing do you no longer hold your previous view on this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stockhausenfan, the previous AfD was over 7 years ago and since then, it has been established that reviews of the software product do not confer notability on the company. If the article was about the software, then the software reviews could be used to establish notability on the software. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfD (which is not addressed by the new nomination). Stockhausenfan (talk)

Which references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability of the company? Which parts of the articles are in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company*? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maveric Systems

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Software, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 15 April 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Twilight Sparkle, Teacher for a Day

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

Non-notable app; no secondary coverage whatsoever ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Software. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are already reviews from Kirkus, Common Sense Media, and Wired in the article. I also found mentions in Kotaku and 148Apps. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I think it toes the line of passing and not passing GNG, but there is a clear merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. MidnightMayhem 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews in Wired, CSM and Kirkus Reviews are enough for GNG. The article needs better sourcing and probably could do with some expansion but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pamzeis (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Pamzeis that the Wired, Common Sense Media, and Kirkus Reviews reviews already on the article appear to meet GNG. 148Apps is noted as a situational source on WP:VG/RS, but the review linked by Vacant0 is also fairly in-depth. Waxworker (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pamzeis and Waxworker above. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments are divided between Merge and Keep, not headed towards a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are enough to pass GNG (though the article could definitely be improved).

I originally supported merging to the MLP article, but I changed my mind, since the MLP article only has a very general overview of other media in the "Other Media" section. Weak support for a stand-alone article. ApexParagon (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as before. Demonstrates little notability outside of reviews, so a fairly short and general overview at the proposed target article is sufficient. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Merge is entirely inappropriate, that article is already full and doesn't have an appropriate space to hold the information in this article. I think the sources above already show that it has enough notability to have an article. Not every article has to be a featured article. Moritoriko (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Finley (businessman)

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

There are brief mentions here and here but none of them are in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may lack significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. The article relies on self-published or promotional material --Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SurveyMonkey. Subject on his own doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX plugin

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

Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DirectX#Components. Does not seem to be notable on its own, and is already mentioned on the main DirectX page

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DirectX#Components: Doesn't need a whole article. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designbox

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

Non-notable software; can't find any SIGCOV besides a few trivial mentions ([14], [15]). Deproded in 2010 without explanation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has been without sources since it was created and still nothing indicating its notability. Sources in the article are primary to the subject. Mekomo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grok (web framework)

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Sources provided are primary or blog sites and I was unable to find any other reliable sources. Not to be confused with the other Grok by Twitter/X. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was instrumental to the creation of Grok the web framework so I'm not an unbiased source; in this day and age I would not feel comfortable editing a wikipedia page about it anymore. We're talking about a web framework that had minor but global attention but has had little attention for a long time.

There is actually a published book about Grok:

https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/grok-10-web-development-9781847197498

https://www.amazon.com/Grok-1-0-Development-Carlos-Guardia/dp/1847197485

At some point Grok technology was part of the Plone project:

https://4.docs.plone.org/appendices/five-grok/background/what-is-grok-and-five-grok.html

It's not a surprise most of the stuff you could find is in blog sites; this was a web framework conceived during the heyday of blogging and a lot of the primary evidence it had some significance and users in multiple countries is through blog entries. So in the rest I will attempt to show that there was a little global community that used Grok and talked about it. I'm from the Netherlands myself, gave conference talks at least in Germany as far as I can recall.

The author of the Grok book, Carlos de la Guardia, is from Mexico.

Here's a company in Lithuania that still has a page up offering Grok consulting services:

http://www.nous.lt/consulting.html

Here's a conference talk recording (with terrible audio) about Grok at a Pycon conference in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF77e2TeeQo

Here's a talk held in Argentina about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbFujCBHjg

Here's a random youtube video mentioning Grok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h17HFEwhz80

A US developer at Georgia tech:

And here are some blog entries:

https://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2007/my-november-grok-presentation/

A US developer reports on a developer in Brazil (now the author of "Fluent Python") using it:

https://www.nateaune.com/kirbi-a-peer-to-peer-library-built-with-grok/

Here's someone blogging in French about it:

https://www.boureliou.com/2009/grok-1-0-released/

Here's a presentation in Japanese that mentions Grok:

http://plone.jp/event-report/opendocs/osw2009-zope

Here's the website of a company in Germany who talk about a Grok meetup:

https://www.acsr.de/archive/der-grok-neanderthal-sprint-im-rheinland/

So it was notable enough to have a small global community of people who used it and talked about t, but it was also a relatively small community. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this paper which discusses Grok:

"Leveraging Convention over Configuration for

Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages"

https://dave.coffee/assets/GreHack-2012-Leveraging_Convention_over_Configuration_for_Static_Analysis_in_Dynamic_Languages.pdf Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google book search and there are actually quite a few books that mention Grok:

Professional Plone 4 Development by Martin Aspeli, 2011

Pro Python System Administration by Rytis Sileika, 2014

Python for Unix and Linux System Administration by Noah Gift, ‎Jeremy M. Jones, 2008

Plone 3 Products Development Cookbook by Juan Pablo Giménez, 2010

Foundations of Python Network Programming by John Goerzen, ‎Tim Bower, ‎Brandon Rhodes, 2011

Mastering Python Design Patterns by Sakis Kasampalis, 2015

Python: Master the Art of Design Patterns by Dusty Phillips, ‎Chetan Giridhar, ‎Sakis Kasampalis, 2016

Enterprise Android: Programming Android Database Applications for the Enterprise

By Zigurd Mednieks, G. Blake Meike, Laird Dornin, Zane Pan, 2013

Even an article on Dutch history by J.W.J. Burgers – Rik Hoekstra The registers of the counts of Holland, 1316–1345: a digital edition in G. Vogeler (Hrsg.): Digitale Diplomatik

/ Buchrezensionen mentions Grok in a technology credit.

Oh, and Fluent Python by Luciano Ramalho, a very popular book about Python, mentions Grok:

Fluent Python: Clear, Concise, and Effective Programming - Page xxiii Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some papers that discuss Grok in some detail:

Worth, David, and Justin Collins. "Leveraging Convention over Configuration for Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages." G 2 reHack 012: 27.

Cerjak, Jure. Razvoj spletnih aplikacij s platformo Zope. Diss. Univerza v Ljubljani, 2010.

Lederer, Dominique. "zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades” Master of Science in Engineering”/” Diplomingenieur (FH)”."

Foglia Ardila, Andrés Felipe. "Comparación del desarrollo de un aplicativo web entre los lenguajes de programación Python y Java." (2014).

There are plenty of other papers that mention Grok as a Python web framework in a more throwaway way, but that still establishes some level of notability. A good way to filter papers for this specific Grok is to look for "grok zope" or "grok python" (the former works better than the latter). Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find links about Elon's version of Grok. I'm not sure what's given for sourcing is enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zope#Grok which should be slightly expanded with material from this article. This would make the Zope article a bit more robust, match other Zope redirects listed in Category:Python_(programming_language)_web_frameworks, and not break any external links pointing to this article. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per above. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging it into Zope as was suggested would make a lot of sense, with a redirect. While Grok may be obscure now, I think the sources I dug up do demonstrate a level of notability.

Is it because another project named Grok came to prominence that this article has received more scrutiny recently? Search engines would be far more likely to lead to Grok the web framework related material in the past than they do now. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confuses readers yes, but does not pass WP:SIGCOV more importantly and for that reason the article should be deleted, not the other or any other reasons which are not grounded in policies or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, please take no offense to this query, but I am curious about what sort of factors a closer uses to decide on consensus? It would appear to me to be very much subjective based on the closer. For example, what here brought you to say, "Is there any more support for a Merge or Redirect?" Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for Liz, but when there is consensus not to retain an article as a standalone page, the WP:ATD policy recommends looking for an alternative to deletion, typically in the form of a redirect or merge to a suitable target. There doesn't need to be a consensus to redirect or merge for an AfD to be closed as such. All that is required is consensus not to keep the article, and some support for the alternative for deletion. So yes, Iljhgtn, there is a fair amount of leeway in how a closer may read consensus. But in this case, Liz is doing exactly what any closer should do, namely, seek support for the lone call to Redirect the page. Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 15:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense, but I rarely, if ever, see others do what she is doing. Either they are almost all doing it wrong... or... so I just felt it best to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)