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.
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:
Delete. The original paper from 1998 (a "technical notice" in a special-interest-group newsletter) has no citations in Google Scholar. This appears to have had no traction and we have no coverage at all (let alone SIGCOV) in sources independent from its author. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Using Google Scholar, I can find plenty of mentions, but not anything substantial. toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [2], [3]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tone is also highly promotional thanks to this edit, which was when User:Mytrum replaced this page with a promotional rewrite in 2022, which was also the user's only contribution. And hmm, I was thinking of something... Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it's all about Mr. Trump in the sources I find, whose name in Finnish sources appears as "Trumpia". Nothing about this software found. Source 6 doesn't even appear to be about the software, maybe a name drop. The rest of the sources used in the article are primary or of questionable notability. The Forbes piece is not notable/not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guideline for companies. PROD removed back in 2009 by article creator. Sources are non-independent (e.g. press releases) or trivial (e.g. The Telegraph piece briefly mentions the company appears in a top-50 list). There's a lot in the FT Adviser but these seem to be thinly rehashed press releases (example), not independent analysis. – Teratix₵16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and can't find any sources either that prove the subject of the article is WP:N, so I change my argument to delete.Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNGSekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A short mention in a 2006 piece from The Mercury News: Beachhead Solutions in Santa Clara sells a $129-a-year service, Lost Data Destruction, which enables an administrator to send a command to destroy data on a laptop that has been stolen. If the thief tries to hook the laptop up to the Internet, it will send a message to the administrator and trigger the data destruction. – Teratix₵12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Telegram: Significant coverage in BBC Pidgin and likely in the non-English articles as well (which I cannot read). Telegram article is long but could easily accommodate a short section on the game, which seems to have drawn attention. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this? A game? A crypto-coin? A ponzi scheme? The sources don't say (and are largely about a related game called "Hamster Combat"), which demonstrates that there is insufficiently substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.
This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch☎✎11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the best bet. A section could be added on conversion software specifically, or on miscellaneous PDF software. It is mentioned in passing in a row in the "Linux and Unix" section of that list. BD2412T20:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add to List It seems to be one of those handy utilities. I see lots of references and I would not be surprised if there isn't more than one bit of software with this obvious name. Lamona (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have 2 different Merge/Redirect target articles now suggested Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
_(16844722920).jpg){kind=icon}