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

Eudia (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source from Fortune 1 is not WP:CORPTRIV, WP. Editorial piece is RS per [[1]] and not a press release. It does appears to me you do not know what in editorial content in independent media, or how it works. Legacy media does not accept paid contributors content.

Business Insider 2, industry organization 3. The company is one of the key industry players of the AI boom, which is a topic that is getting a lot of interest.

And a dozen of product analysis by industry analysts: 4. I am must not going to copy all from google search. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WestwoodHights573: Did you say product analysis. What product analysis exactly? That ref isn't a product analysis or a case study. If you do have more please fire them up. scope_creep^Talk 20:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is the second largest company in the AI boom, legal tech. AI Boom companies companies are all new 1,2,3 4 etc. Claiming that some of the biggest companies everyone in the industry talks about are not notable is factually wrong. Wikipedia does not define the notability of a company that is notable. It is not a $1–10 million early, no-name startup. These are ai giants. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about what everyone in the industry is talking about, but 2 random corporate blogs, partner content (The Currency) and what is pretty clearly a slop shop (AIM Media House) are patently not acceptable sources, and Wikipedia does define what is acceptable to allow onto Wikipedia, for which this is a hard no. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CollegeNET

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

Seems to be a failure of WP:NCORP. Existing sourcing is almost exclusively primary, a lot of which seems to have been written by someone with a COI, due to the trademark symbols all over the place. There doesn't seem to be much more out there. The only even half usable source in the article is the one from ZDNet, but that's pretty surface level and doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Education. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an Oregonian article about a lawsuit against the company ([2]). I also found some coverage of an older antitrust lawsuit the company was involved in from The Chronicle of Higher Education ([3]) and Higher Ed Dive ([4]). I suspect additional sources are out there; I'll try to do a bit more digging later. Zeibgeist (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete unless it's heavily rewritten.~~ I'm not sure if it's bad enough that WP:TNT is warranted, but what's here is likely near-useless given all the primary sources here. That said, Zeibgeist seems to be already at work getting the thing in a manner that's shipshape-- the trademark symbol sea is now gone. So, it seems to me that the "if heavily rewritten" is going to happen. Godspeed you magnificent gentleman. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: How's it looking now? More cleanup work is needed, but I've reworked a good portion of the article with secondary sources. There's more secondary coverage out there, but I think I'll take a break for tonight. I'll try to come back to this tomorrow and tidy up some more. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, I think this might be keepable now. You are a scholar and a gentleman, Zeibgeist, thank you so much! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company has released some significant software over the course of its history and it's also received coverage for a number of lawsuits. I've reworked the article with secondary sources, and there's more coverage to be found on Newspapers.com and sources like The Chronicle of Higher Education. We easily have enough here to meet WP:NCORP. I'll try to expand some more in the coming days. Zeibgeist (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved significantly thanks to Zeibgeist. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

H2O (software)

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

Promotional content. Notability not demonstrated. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Under the software guideline (WP:NSOFT), software is notable if it is a "subject of instruction" or has "technical significance."

A book-length treatment by an independent publisher is one of the strongest indicators of notability. There are dedicated third-party books written about the software, such as Machine Learning at Scale with H2O (Packt Publishing, 2022). [5]
H2O is a widely recognized open-source, distributed machine learning platform designed for high scalability across large datasets. The platform is noted for its tight integrations with major cloud environments and big data computing frameworks. It is compatible with and often deployed on leading public cloud providers, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and Microsoft Azure, as well as specialized high-performance computing (HPC) environments. It has established a significant industry presence, with reported usage by over 20,000 organizations and a community that includes hundreds of thousands of data scientists. [6]

Moreover,

H2O is increasingly cited in peer-reviewed journals for its "AutoML" capabilities. For example, papers in PubMed Central and AutoML.org (both completely independent of h2o.ai) discuss H2O's specific algorithms (like H2O-3 and Driverless AI) in detail. Example: [7]
H2O.ai has been consistently recognized as a "Leader" or "Visionary" in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Science and Machine Learning Platforms (e.g., 2018, 2020). This is a top-tier industry benchmark. [8]
It has been featured as a "Strong Performer" or "Leader" in The Forrester Wave™: Notebook-Based Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning Solutions. [9]
H2O (the open-source platform) and H2O Driverless AI (the commercial platform) have been recurring winners of InfoWorld’s most prestigious awards, including both the Bossie Awards (Best of Open Source Software) and the Technology of the Year Awards. [10] [11] [12]

Btyner (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There is a chapter about it in a book published by Wiley, and a book about it published by O'Reilly Media. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I think I have some swag from them from an R conference a while back. They have plenty of sources and are notable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to all the great sources found above, the first two sources that were in the article at the time of nomination demonstrate notability. How on earth is "notability not demonstrated"? It is obvious that there is a lack of a basic understanding of WP: GNG by the nominator. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox Sync

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

The article and sources don't make a convining case that the sync issue in Firefox is or ever was notable on its own and needs a stand-alone article. These days every second app or service has syncing funcitonality, and we generally don't describe them. This one begun as an extension before it became a core feature, but even that doesn't seem that notable (sources are mostly primary and how-to's, and my BEFORE fails to find anything that is better and meets SIGCOV). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mozilla Firefox: This article does not demonstrate notability with its sources, many of which are unreliable. Redirecting to the main browser article would suffice. 11WB (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This is a built-in feature of the browser now and does not appear to justify its own article. There is no coverage from non-primary sources showing it was ever independently notable. MidnightMayhem (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FADE

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

Lots of original research and perhaps not WP:Verifiable. Eurogamer and PCGamer articles are on DEGRADE from Bohemia Interactive, but it's not clear if that is different from FADE. Appears not-notable. IgelRM (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. IgelRM (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Eurogamer is an ok source, but that's all I can pull up as well. The interview in PC Gamer doesn't help notability; we'd need a few more sources to show notability. With this old software, I doubt much more will show up these days. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Gommeh 📖 🎮 17:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrotranslator

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

I could not find any reputable news sources reporting on Retrotranslator. GrinningIodize (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. GrinningIodize (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any news sources reporting on Retrotranslator either. The only relevant thing is this forum comment: https://groups.google.com/g/h2-database/c/mriGkF0jXiE (I am not one of the people commenting in that thread)

I have used Retrotranslator back in the day, and it is (was?) a very useful and very well executed project which in my opinion deserved more popularity which it never got. I wanted to write a post about it on my blog, but I never did and eventually deleted my blog because I don't use Java anymore.

I don't know if Retrotranslator can be useful today, but even if not I think the page it can be useful for "historical" purposes. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policies for deletion is the mere lack of "news sources" sufficient? I mean, there are still plenty of repositories (I suppose forks/clones of the original ones) about it, and if I did not know about it already, I would appreciate a page like this one, even with the very limited information it has on it. ~2025-43801-26 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of news sources doesn't guarantee a deletion, but it's usually a good sign that there's bigger notability issues with the article in question. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing but the tool’s own info/help website. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article being unsourced since 2008 isn’t a great sign either. Leaning delete here, sadly this seems to never have caught on, but I agree with the temp. account that it seems cool project. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find any independent sources with significant coverage on the program. From a search, all potential sources are forum posts. Therefore this fails WP:GNG. Ecourter (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perl OpenGL

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. None of the references are independent and reliable. The first is the profile page of a project developer, the second is a Wiki. The rest are to official documentation pages, except for the source on perl.com which is written by at least one project developer (Bob Free).

Definitely needs some independent sources to stay on modern-day Wikipedia. In WP:BEFORE searches I just found false positives and very passing mentions saying that the project exists, but far short of WP:SIGCOV. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From secondary, reliable sources online, we learn that Perl OpenGL allows the usage of OpenGL in Perl. That's about it. Delete. I would advise whomever's interested in this article's content to write a relevant chapter of b:Perl Programming at Wikibooks instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable simple wrapper library, can't find essentially anything that would indicate a GNG/NSOFT pass. Not a deletion reason on its own, but being marked as an orphan for 10+ years isn't a great sign of any real notability either. ScalarFactor (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spagic

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

The only sources which I've found:

[13] - only a little mention.

[14] - a description.

I'm not sure it's enough to establish the notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Comparison of business integration software where its mentioned at most, otherwise barely getting any results from additional searches.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of business integration software: Per above. I also couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish the notability of the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bit (payment application)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure advertising article. No indication of significance for startup. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 05:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not startup. Here are some of the results from the first page on Google. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these paid-for PR. For example in [22] "The new service, which will be available in the coming weeks". How did she know about that? Because its paid for PR. I'll go through all these refs. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that everything is paid-for PR. Calcalist is a reputable source. Also, the first link above is talking negatively about Bit after its loses. Would be a strange PR to pay for. Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Israel. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, yea they say that Calcalist is a reputable source but they take the advertising dollar as much as anybody else, to survive like every else. That reads like typical straight-PR as part of PR campaign to prepare the business to becoming a bank and sell their card. Its plain as day. We can look at the sources this week. scope_creep^Talk 20:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merger to Bank Hapoalim, the service's operator, is clearly more appropriate than deletion if the service is not independently notable. Jahaza (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable Israeli media covers the app in the context of the bank. See for instance:[23] Jahaza (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references and the references posted because I think its failing WP:NCORP.

Ref 1 is non-rs. Its not independent
Ref 2 [24] This is routine annocement from a press-release by the banking authority. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 3 [25] This is from a press-release and conversation with Bank Hapoalim deputy, the company that is doing the deal, the app becomes a bank. Its fails WP:ORGIND. It is not indepedent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 4 [26]. Information is from Avi Kochba, also a Bank Hapoalim deputy. Interview style. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [27] This is the company. Non-rs
Ref 6 That is a company definition/details in startup finder. It is not independent. Created by the company. It fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 7 Same document as Ref 3
Ref 8 [28] This is Yadin Anteb talking of Bank Hapoalim. Its not independent either.
Ref 9 [29] This discusses and compares with payment metholodogies and associated costs.

Lets look at the rest from the raw Google search above, which isn't the best:

[30] Company produced this video.
[31] This is from a press-release.
[32] This is the "bit" fraud. I don't think its anything to do with the app. Non-rs.
[33] This is from a press-release. Paid for PR to tell customers change in terms. Its not independent.
[34] This is the same content from above, different venue. It is not independent
[35] Same gig. It is not independent
[36] Same gig again. Latest deals to use the app.

Nothing here passes WP:NCORP that is neither here from the bank and its app or one of the employees. Ref 9 comes closest but its information taken from the company website and its a comparison article, not exclusively written about the bit app. scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively into Bank Hapoalim as an unjustified SPINOUT and excessive fragmentation. The target is way too short and can benefit from some of the content here. My recommendation takes into full consideration the source analysis and BROCHURE claims by nom. gidonb (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or highly selective merge). Any content that is merged should be rewritten so that it is WP:NOTADVERTISING, which is how the current article is written. There is no reason we can't cover a company's products on the company's page, but the current content is too full of puffery. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Perl Conference

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article is unreferenced. From a Google search, I found no usable secondary sources about it. (Note: I found a number of Perl-related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct and they were created by different editors, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, The Python Conference page is also unreferenced? Instead of erasing the historical memory of tens of thousands of people who attended those events (I myself attended a couple), what needs to be done is to improve the article so that it has the same quality as the Python Conference page and those for other programming languages. The fact that there are no references to it on Google doesn't mean that there weren't numerous Perl fan pages recounting their experiences from those days. In fact, it's still being held. The last one was this year, in June. There are 125 articles that link to this page. And versions in three languages (Spanish, French, and Dutch). JoaquinFerrero (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a nice reference on The Perl Foundation's official website, which recounts the first 25 years. It explains how the conferences organized by the O'Reilly company (The O'Reilly Pearl Conference in 1997) would evolve into the OSCON conference, and later into the YAPC.

https://news.perlfoundation.org/post/the_first_twenty-five_years JoaquinFerrero (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blog post, which does not qualify for Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog post from The Perl Foundation, a subject-matter expert. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the YAPC website (emphasis mine): "The Yet Another Perl Conferences (YAPCs) are grassroots symposia on the Perl programming language promoted by The Perl Foundation, a non-profit corporation dedicated to the advancement of the Perl programming language through open discussion, collaboration, design, and code. We also support other collaborative events such as Perl workshops and hackathons." [37]

We don't know the editorial standards of TPF, but even if we did, this doesn't appear to be an independent source. A foundation supporting the conference would be more than willing to publish a piece singing praises about said conference. It doesn't meet the standard for WP: GNG on multiple counts. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this historical memory appears in secondary sources, Wikipedia will absolutely erase it, regardless if the article is kept. Wikipedia is no place for publication of what was not published before. Regarding fan pages, these usually are not good sources, either. ~2025-41636-00 (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers. We owe you nothing. The PyCon page also has more than a dozen references; claiming that it's "unreferenced" is pure fiction. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: the solution is to add References to this page, not delete it. Easy? JoaquinFerrero (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently not, considering you've commented here three times without presenting a single source that establishes the subject's notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did a WP: BEFORE, found a couple small blurbs in books, but nothing that would be enough to write an article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no opposition to a merge. No preference on merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Perl programming language. In cases like this where the subject by itself is not all that notable, but the material when merged might still be of some lesser interest, that is the best WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between deleting and merging. Need to consider more if there is any content that could be put in the parent Perl article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a full (photo) book about the Perl communities. Photos were taken at OSCON conferences. The book was edited in 2008.

It may qualify as a secondary source, as the author can be considered « indépendant » from the Perl community itself.

The photos can be seen on Flickr too. Smonff (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several more sources in books and old computing journals on archive.org and added these with some more facts. I also reorganized the article a bit. I think there are enough sources to justify keeping this article. It is referenced in multiple independent sources from the early 2000s as the second-most important Perl conference and as the grassroots, low cost conference. This would explain why it's not visible in the ACM Digital Library - it wasn't academic and it was for people without lots of money. That kind of event is often less visible in the historical record, not because they're less important but because there is less money in PR and documentation. The frequently mentions (each at least a paragraph specifically about the conference series, some have more) are evidence that the conferences were significant. In addition to the many paragraphs saying this is an important conference if you'r interested in Perl, there is a 3/4 page review of the 2001 Amsterdam conference in the Dutch Linux Magazine. There was probably more coverage at the time that is difficult to find digitally today. Lijil (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: more than enough coverage in Gscholar to show it exists [38], [39]. Article needs a rewrite, as it's more of a list of events, but has been going on for over 20 yrs now with coverage in books and various articles. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a passage from the second source? The first is a very short paragraph -- not enough to write an article with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is paywalled but appears to about this conference series, which would be Yet Another Source supporting notability! If you additionally look at the several sources I added to the article already I think you’ll agree there is more than enough for WP:GNG. Lijil (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had already included source 1 in my revisions of the article. Lijil (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not answering my question. Can you give me a passage from the second source? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's available from Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. You should meet the relevant prerequisites for access and be able to search the title of the article from TWL's EBSCOHost.
Since then, Perl Mongers [a user group brian d foy summarizes the history of] organized, as loosely as possible, a community. The Pittsburgh Perl Mongers put on the first Yet Another Perl Conference, from which Kevin Lenzo started Yet Another Society, which turned into The Perl Foundation. Now the Perl user groups are the worker bees of YAPC (and without any work for me!).
Aaron Liu (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a trivial mention to me, unless there's additional context that you've omitted. In the absence of any additional information, I'm going to say that neither of these sources cover the subject at sufficient depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lijil has added several more sources to reference claims in the article. Just those referenced claims alone seem enough to justify a standalone article, so I say ~~Keep~~. The Locations section should probably be removed and converted to Wikidata entries like d:Q483279#P706. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some more, all of the contents could be comfortably merged as a subsection of Perl#Community. I did not notice that a decent chunk of the History section is also just locations, and the Reception section would still make sense as a part of a subsection. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Interoperable Object Reference (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2025)