Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Software

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

Don't see how this company passes WP:NCORP. The sources are all WP:ORGTRIV, articles about its founder but not WP:SIGCOV of the company, WP:TRADES publications, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and that's also what I find in my WP:BEFORE search. I'm not seeing any coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH and thus passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding and aquisition announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 talk! 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I draftified this because the original version was purely based on press releases. It was "improved" with other sources, but when the first source gives a 404 ([1]), as does the WSJ one[2], and I see a source like this one, I don't think it is worth keeping the article or the editor involved (note both the names of the writers and the ISBN):

Smith, John; Doe, Jane (2023). "Key Players in Virtual Event Platforms". The Evolution of Event Technology. Tech Press. pp. 112–115. ISBN 978-0123456789.

And then we have actual, working sources that don't even mention VFairs[3] Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has some mentions but would be better as a merge into one of the many Microsoft product lists such as List of Microsoft software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but I think the subject does have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability on its own. I’m open to improving the article with better references if that helps. A merge could work, but I’d prefer to try building it up a bit first—worth a shot before removing it entirely. Vinizex94🌍 01:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ZF Openmatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company which only seems to have received trivial coverage, failing WP:ORG. Some references are written like press releases. Article mainly created and maintained by two WP:SPA editors (2013, 2022).C679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4A Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears too technical to be encyclopedic (e.g. "3,000 tasks per 30ms frame"). Despite the large Eurogamer/Digital Foundry feature, relevance appears largely related to 4A Games. IgelRM (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is about a startup that fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NCORP). There aren't sources that discusses the subject in depth, and the sources are mostly sponsored, routine announcements of raisings etc..., and talk about the founder other than the business itself. Also note that this source, while it meets WP:SIGCOV, it might also be sponsored by the way. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
T-code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have encyclopedic value; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LR.127 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The subject is very much notable - just search "SAP t-codes" on Google Books. There is an absolutely enormous amount of independent, secondary writing about SAP transaction codes. But I tend to agree with the nominator that there's almost nothing encyclopedic that can be written about them in isolation. All of the sources about t-codes are some version of a how-to guide or another violation of WP:NOT. My suggested ATD would be a redirect to ABAP#Transactions, but open to other suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per @MCE89 -- have also encountered cases in which trying to create an article for every concept fails because concepts need to be covered together, and little can be said without repetition in trying to make an isolated article on each part. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red Carpet (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
XBRLS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this page does not meet the general notability criteria. The Talk:XBRLS page itself states (from 2008):

"XBRLS doesn't have much notability and jus[sic] a few links because XBRLS is a brand new, only a few months old."

XBRLS was an idea that never gained any traction, and it's inclusion as a separate page is inconsistent with other XBRL-related developments that are mentioned on the main XBRL page. For example, Inline XBRL is used for millions of company reports every year, including UK tax filings, filings for listed EU companies (under ESEF), and filings to the US SEC, Japan FSA, and South African CIPC, and yet is covered in a section on the main XBRL page.

The only relevant first-page hits for a Google search for XBRLS are the wikipedia page, and an article written by the authors of XBRLS.

XBRLS was not an official XBRL Standard, and its inclusion as a separate page is likely to cause confusion to readers. Pdwxbrl (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
StreetComplete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional content, no indication of notability. This used to be a redirect which may be a better idea thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it would be better to improve the article instead of deleting it, StreetComplete is not the same as OSM. I'm not super familiar with Wikipedia but IMO notability seems to be fulfilled with several different sources covering the topic.
Also, could you please be more specific on what parts are "promotional" and how they could be re phrased.
Thanks and best regards --Fkjs (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: One sentence mentioned in https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/02/google_blocks_android_foss_donations/, many project descriptions at https://nlnet.nl/project/; NLNet seems to be considered a reliable secondary source, see LabPlot precedent. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has good source coverage and advertising issues are fixed by now Fkjs (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fusion Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I'm pretty sure these references are hallucinated, as besides the IGN one, none resolve (the GameSpot one resolves too, but because it's using the ID of a different article). ~ A412 talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Redirect to Fusion engine makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been re-opened to get a more clearer consensus on a redirect or merge or else.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particular relevant to merge. A redirect to the Fusion engine disambiguation page is standard procedure. The phantom references used by the author should probably be investigated further. IgelRM (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
XB Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not much coverage about the machine itself. Redirect xB browser is an ok alternative too.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JOSSO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Platinum Arts Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenpr:, care to provide a rationale why the sources cited in the article do not meet WP:GNG? In particular, the Brazilian Symposium on Games and Digital Entertainment, PC Gaming Magazine, and PC Format Magazine sources? ~ A412 talk! 05:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find said issues (Total PC Gaming Magazine, February 2009;
PC Format Magazine, issue 232, November 2009)? IgelRM (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has more footnotes demonstrating notability than actual content, so it doesn't mandate a deletion yet would barely count as a weak keep. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is currently a case of WP:OFFLINE where the article's supporting information isn't accessible enough to make a call, but on the available citations, it's not very impressive. The Symposium paper is the only secondary significant coverage I can see - the others are primary sources. Again, only on the merit of available sourcing, which would likely change would lean delete absent a search for other sourcing. VRXCES (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
InstaPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The app is not notable by its own, and it does not have enough reliable third party sources with journalistic significant not just press-released coverage. All the sources within the page and the ones I managed to find BEFORE are only event-based - Egypt's central bank launched... Norlk (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are sources reporting on it, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing that addresses the subject directly and in detail, with their own independent analysis. The WP:ORGTRIV announcements we see would fail multiple criteria out of WP:SIRS, and all four of those criteria must be met for any individual source to contribute to ORG/PRODUCT notability. I am also hesitant to recommend a redirect as the product shares a name with the Philippines version of the same thing (and also a payday lender), though I would not be entirely opposed if that does end up being the result. Alpha3031 (tc) 06:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]