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

N-iX (software company)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Total Ombers (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources in sight. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please note that the deletion nomination was made from an account with only 20 edits, and the user’s last edits were two years ago. This looks very much like a typical Wikibusiness scheme: they offer the company “protection” for the page (from vandalism and deletion), the company refuses, and then the article is either filled with negative PR or nominated for deletion. Because of this, there is strong suspicion that the nominator User:Total Ombers may be evading a block. 176.36.152.29 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse other editors of malpractice and sockpuppetry without any evidence; this constitutes personal attacks. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 10:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the user somehow came back after two years just to delete this article (and with Twinkle, no less), which is still interesting to see. However, I still wouldn't !vote keep solely because of this. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, but it still doesn't make the article any more notable. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damco Solutions

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, India, Haryana, United States of America, and New Jersey. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent significant coverage, a PR induced article. - The9Man ^Talk 06:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can find meets WP:ORGCRIT. Note that the Forbes references (at least the links to the ones working) fall under WP:FORBESCON. The rest is routine coverage, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the rationale of the nominator strangely similar to some other suspicious nominations and is too generic, LLM-created. The page has the problems with some of the sources not notable, but I see Insurance Journal, Computer Weekly and several other to be notable and covering the subject in enough depth.--Nuerkran (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BetterSleep

(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. [1], 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.[2] 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.[3][4] 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.[5] 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.[6] Google something like "Teladoc FTC" and you'll find plenty of stuff. Same with BetterHelp.[7] There are also the class action lawsuits of course.[8][9] 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]

GNU coding standards

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Toadspike [Talk] 06:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNU Coding Standards are the subject of a full-length article in Linux Journal ("What's GNU? GNU Coding Standards" by Arnold Robbins, No. 16es, August 1995). They're also referenced in dozens of programming books; among those with more than passing mentions are Advanced Linux Programming (Mark L. Mitchell, Alex Samuel, Jeffrey Oldham, 2001), The Art of Unix Programming (Eric S. Raymond, 2003), The Definitive Guide to GCC (William von Hagen, 2004), and Code Reading (Diomidis Spinellis, 2003). —Psychonaut (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Psychonaut said it well. -- Avocado (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Linux journal subject background as outlined by Psychonaut. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gnits standards

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into GNU Coding Standards (reliable sources for which are discussed on its own AfD page). —Psychonaut (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OTT Middleware

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure the content issues are because the article was generated using an LLM. No comment on the rest yet, may evaluate later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, GPTZero says 100% AI. I should have checked that first. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not viable for mainspace, is as, and seeing that it has been moved in and out of draft I don't think that "draftify" will be a solution. I have no idea if it is AI-generated, but in any case it does not have sufficient sources to be kept; it reads like OR. Lamona (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I feel this page needs a little work, as many sentences do not have citations. However in addition to existing citations I am seeing a lot more coverage on it in Google, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.Goodboyjj (talk) 08:08, 4 July 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]

FusionReactor

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, and Germany. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have been thinking about sending this article to AfD for a while. I haven't been able to find any sources that would help it pass GNG. Even if independent RS coverage can be found, I'd argue for recreating as a redirect or perhaps selectively merging to a larger article to allow for better safeguarding; since it's creation by the company in 2009, it's only really been edited by a string of FusionReactor SPAs. Talkpage says it all, really. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:59, 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]

del no significant independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 21:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

(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 - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [10][11] (Reuters), [12][13] (Bloomberg), [14][15][16][17](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: All of those are WP:CORPTRIV... 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices ... of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital'. So again, if you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith. The articles from Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch provide non-trivial coverage by focusing specifically on Applied Intuition’s funding, valuation, business model, and industry role, not just standard notices or brief announcements. They include independent analysis and sustained attention, meeting WP:GNG and exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Again, I suggest the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 19:43, 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]

Delete. Every source is valuations and funding rounds - where is the ORGCRIT? qcne (talk) 12:32, 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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are plenty of articles that establish notability such as TechCrunch, WSJ and more.Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

TabPFN

(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]

Discussion of sourcing and improvement. Comment that creator of tagged page has a connection declared on their userpage.

Comment: Per WP:BEFORE#C, if the issues are content related (as tagged by nom prior to AfD) then the editor should be given some time to develop the article (post talk-page discussion) or article should be edited to fix those issues. If notability is a concern, is nom. saying per WP:DILIGENCE that no sources exist for this AfD (since otherwise AfD may not be the correct procedure)? In my search, I can see secondary sources exist in reliable venues that discuss this topic. WeWake (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help! However, the article is quite poor quality at the moment. It would require a substantial rewrite. I’m not an expert in the problem domain so not sure if it meets GNG. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Stanford, I have rewritten the article in the meantime. Please take a look if possible. — WeWake (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for redrafting. I will take a look. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeWake I checked the "The History, Evolution and Future of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)" source and it does not even mention TabPFN. Can you comment on what happened there?

Do you have a connection to TabPFN? Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unsourced, you're welcome to remove it. I addressed WP:PROSE issues and simply inlined the existing citations within the article. You're welcome to review the history; and I have no connection to the article other than what I am here for - to help create an encyclopedia. I am not sure what warrants this inquiry, but hopefully that helps. WeWake (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature article is referenced in the paper (number 42), however I agree that it's a statement that is more directed towards tabular foundation models in general instead of TabPFN specifically. AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AlessandrobonettoPL (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. (and also declared having a direct connection to the article on their profile) – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: After normal editing, example sources that meet WP:GNG (also easily WP:NSOFTWARE): (a) ICLR Blogposts 2024 – peer-reviewed "post" with editorial oversight published by ICLR from a non-primary source; (b) Nature News&Views – published in the same venue, but a secondary commentary/coverage from a highly reputable source; (c) ~4k stars on GitHub; (d) Fortune (magazine) coverage (considered reliable) by staff AI editor; and (e) TabPFN v1 cited >400 times (meets criteria of significant impact I'd say), and many more. WeWake (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nature News&Views looks good. Not sure if ICLR Blogposts is really reliable? I don't think there is a consensus to monitor stars on GitHub for notability for software (see WP:Notability (software)) and, even if so, 4K is really not that many for this purpose. Fortune may be notable according to here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Stanford, the blog is peer-reviewed (double-blind) and also a poster actually (here) – without any evidence presented to the contrary, that seems reliable in this context. — WeWake (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further specific discussion about page notability.

I would say notability is there according to Wikipedia guidelines: sources 1, 2, 7 and 10 are discussing TabPFN in high detail, including a Nature publication, an ICLR conference paper and a Fortune article. In addition to this, sources 13 (IEEE Sensors Journal), 17 (Journal of Wetlands Research), 18 (NeurIPS), 20 (Digital Health), are research papers solely focused on TabPFN AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:28, 23 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]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The article continues to have content issues, and assessing the independence of reliable sources can be tricky in academic and commercial contexts (and this model exists is in both contexts!). However, I see sufficient coverage in Fortune and in follow-on academic work to meet WP:GNG. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I spot-checked refs and they checked out. Notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltego

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 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]

Keep Sources WeLiveSecurity, ComputerWeekly, Yahoo Finance, Threatpost, and Infosecurity Magazine are reliable independent sources with good coverage of the subject. Based on this, the article meets WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fluentgrid

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article doesn't seem to have any problems. According to WP:SIRS, it is notable. Earth605 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. The company has potentially hundreds of instances of coverage in reliable sources. This article does it no justice. FalconK (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am intrigued to hear why you think so? I didn't pull up anything good when I did my quick look so I am curious about your rationale. Moritoriko (talk) 04:01, 26 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]

Delete. No indication of notability. Aneirinn (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)