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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tachiyomi. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mihon

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. The article is sourced almost entirely to primary/self-published material. The only third-party mentions located focus on Tachiyomi (the upstream project) rather than this fork. LvivLark (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Webcomics, Products, Technology, Software, Websites, and Japan. LvivLark (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – agree on WP:GNG; A section at Tachiyomi as a "significant" fork or "successor" could be warranted based on the (self-reported) user count. NormThe (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – merge into Tachiyomi, provided it is WP:DUE. ~~~~

Editor1769 21:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively ("smerge") as per Editor1769. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones

AfDs for this article:

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

Arbitary hand-picked collection that can never be anywhere near completeness because there are so many of these products. Much too broad and is just a collection of tables that aren't so useful. Prebenn (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Prebenn (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The information tables are rather detailed, but with no inline citations, it's too hard to check if the info is correct. One of those articles that is too long to likely be incorrect/hokum, but who knows. We could draft I suppose, but this is too long of a list to be worked on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Besides all the issues listed above, it's also actually impossible to compare two phones on the basis of what is actually just a hopelessly long list of all phones with certain (one hopes key) specifications. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. jolielover♥talk 15:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm shocked this survived four deletion discussions. Majorly unsourced, too broad of a topic now that there are thousands of models of smartphones out there, quite frankly trivial and WP:INDISCRIMINATE... jolielover♥talk 15:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likely informative for many, but it is not fit for this encyclopaedia. Orientls (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the last votes in the previous nom claimed this could be improved, but generally if you have to use the left-right scroll to see an entire list, that is more an impediment than anything and we're at a point with the oversaturation of the smartphone market where this article must be let go (the listing of phones not universally found worldwide like our old blacklisted friends Huawei/ZTE and overpacking of various barely different Oppos doesn't help either). Nathannah • 📮 00:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Let'srun (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is also a similar deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of digital SLRs for similar reasons. --Prebenn (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... this is a massive unweildy article trying to list as many different model of smartphone as possible and compared them to one another. Far too broad in scope and poorly backed up with referencing. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI/ML Development Platform

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

This article does not establish notability. It's also mostly seemingly AI generated and not useful. Based on the information presented in the article, I see no reason for it to exist. popodameron ⁠talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. popodameron ⁠talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as AI slop. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as AI-generated, and the cited references that I checked never talk about "AI/ML development platforms" as a cohesive topic, but talk about individual AI applications. So it's WP:SYNTH as well as slop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of network monitoring systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely original research, sources do not verify claims, inclusion criteria is not clear, so difficult to edit to improvement. Deletion as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE Nayyn (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has never happened to me before, but I came across this article naturally and saw it was under an AfD. While I agree with OP that the article needs a decent amount of work, I believe that if it is deleted, we may never see it replaced. As of right now, it is the only resource on the wiki which provides a list of SNMP management products. SNMP isn't exactly cutting edge technology - everything on this list is at least 15 years old. New SNMP products don't enter the market frequently, if at all. SNMP itself is as close to written in stone as a software protocol can get. The last SNMP-related RFC was published in 2003. All of this is to say, this is a stable, slow-moving sector, and I suspect that there is relatively little motivation to put together a high-quality, regularly updated product aggregation article among the community. I would prefer this flawed article over no article at all. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 00:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeVos Max, could you suggest an appropriate Merge/Redirect source for this? I am not an expert on this area so if there is an appropriate target for it to go to, that would be useful. Given the longstanding issues with the article, if it's not able to be edited appropriately, it doesn't really belong here, even if people find it useful. Given the age of the material you cited above, can it be improved with appropriate sources? We have no way to ascertain the validity of this table as is. Nayyn (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason that it cannot be edited appropriately, all I was suggesting is that we may have a difficult time finding an editor with both the available time and knowledge to rewrite this article from scratch. I would love to do it myself, but I just don't have the time for that type of thing these days.

The article absolutely can be improved - it's completely viable to cite nearly every, if not every claim made in the article. My only concern is the frequency with which version numbers are updated, since they are all currently outdated, except one that I fixed yesterday.

Sometime in the next couple weeks, I'll add citations to this table.

DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. DeVos Max has indicated that the content can be sourced and improved. Additionally, there were sources identified in the previous AFDs that indicate this topic passes WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tulip Interfaces

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

Fails WP:NCORP – Sources are routine and do not provide in-depth, independent coverage, so notability is not established. AlanRider78 (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. AlanRider78 (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Why must we jump to the deletion of an article so quickly? The company has significant coverage in reliable sources WP:GNG: The article demonstrates notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through considerable coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, such as MIT News, TechCrunch, and Automation World. The citations provide in-depth coverage of Tulip Interfaces’ operations, technological innovations, and industry impact. These sources are independent of the subject, meet Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria (WP:RS), and go beyond trivial mentions, establishing Tulip’s significance in the industrial software and IIoT sectors. Also, there are little to no promotional issues (WP:V, WP:NPOV): The article contains verifiable information supported by a range of credible sources. Give this article time and let people work on making it better. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any good sources to meet WP:NCORP; most of them are just routine business reporting such as fundraising and partnership announcements. The MIT News source is not independent since the business originated at MIT. It is possible that both the creator and deletion nominator are UPEs per this comment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Helpful Raccoon. I've sent private evidence to COIVRT - this one is definitely UPE and AI-generated. Fails WP:NCORP as well. Gheus (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is very little coverage outside of funding announcements. Two pages of Gnews, this is about the best one [2], this [3] isn't about funding, but it appears to be a primary source. What's in the article now isn't helpful, potentially LLM slop doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that is entirely original research containing considerable entries in a directory-like fashion. Many of the entries are included via external links and claims are not appropriately supported via reliable, independent sources WP:NOTLINK. Unclear criteria for inclusion in this list makes it difficult to upkeep, as cleanup is regularly required by editors to remove promotional activities and to prevent link farming. No indication of notability on this topic itself or why it is relevant to the encyclopedia. Relevant policies for deletion include WP:ORIGINALITY and WP:NOTGUIDE Nayyn (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unclear that "JavaScript-based source code editors" is even a relevant categorization. Does that mean VS Code forks? Brandon (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to admit I have found this page very useful, but it doesn't really belong here on Wikipedia. I have copied it to the software wiki. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Speedy deletion under G11 by Patar knight. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobicip

AfDs for this article:

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

GNG fail. Sourced almost entirely to itself. Electricmemory (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trimension

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Netherlands. jolielover♥talk 09:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found sources describing this software independently in detail. Seems to be defunct. Difficult to find articles due to other companies using the name trimension. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QQLive

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and China. jolielover♥talk 09:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Feng, Liju; Yang, Jie; Zhou, Wenli (November 2009). "Research on active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system". 2009 IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICNIDC.2009.5360863.
  The abstract notes: "Based on the analysis of QQLive protocol, an active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system was presented by the in-depth study of characteristic message and characteristic payload in the communication process of QQLive. The system acquires the channel list and program information, at the same time monitors the viewing user information by forging the client to send message to the server. Theoretical analysis and experiments demonstrate that the active monitoring based method has higher controllability and accuracy in comparison with the passive monitoring based method. The active monitoring based real-time information acquisition system provides an important data foundation to the content detection and user behavior analysis of P2P streaming media."
  The aritcle notes: "QQLive is large-scale video broadcast software developed by Tencent. It uses advanced P2P streaming media playing technology, the more users the more fluent playing and more stable. ... The communication process of QQLive will be described in detail, which has provided an important basis for the real-time information acquisition system design."
2. Yang, Jie; Li, Yin-zhou; Dong, Chao; Ma, Zheng; Cheng, Gang (October 2012). "The impact of typical applications on network traffic". The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications. 19: 98–103.
  The article notes: "Many researches showed that the usage of P2P applications is growing dramatically and typical P2P streaming applications such as PPLive, PPStream, and QQLive become very popular. ... QQLive (a commercial video-streaming application that is delivered through P2P) ... PPStream and QQLive belong to P2PStream. ... So we can know that HTTP, PPStream, HTTPFlash, QQLive and Thunder play an important role in network traffic. ... QQLive has the lowest correlation coefficient both on Thursday and Sunday, and the values are 0.991 and 0.986, which remain considerably high. "
3. Wang, Jingqun 王敬群; Yang, Wang 杨望; Ding, Wei 丁伟 (2010). "部分应用软件使用UDP协议调查" [Investigation on the Use of the UDP Protocol by some Application Software] (PDF). 第十二届海峡两岸信息（资讯）技术（CSIT2010） [The 12th Cross-Strait Information Technology Conference (CSIT2010)] (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.
  The article notes: "QQLive:QQLive 是一款由腾讯开发的网络电视软件。对抓包结果分析可知，QQLive 可以同时兼容TCP 和UDP 方式，但以UDP 协议主。软件启动后，UDP 较少（低于5%），正式播放后，UDP 逐渐增多，最终所占比率大于 80%，其中包含使用 UDP 封装的QICQ，STUN 应用层协议和没有应用层的UDP协议。图6为其中的一次抓包结果。"
  From Google Translate: "QQLive: QQLive is an online TV application developed by Tencent. Analysis of packet capture results shows that QQLive is compatible with both TCP and UDP, but primarily uses UDP. After the software is launched, UDP traffic is relatively low (less than 5%). After live streaming, UDP traffic gradually increases, ultimately exceeding 80%. This includes QICQ using UDP encapsulation, the STUN application layer protocol, and UDP without an application layer. Figure 6 shows the results of one such packet capture."
4. Zhang, Renfei; He, Side; Jia, Yanyan; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Leilei (2012-04-06). "Traffic Analysis of Popular Peer-to-Peer IPTV VoD Systems". ICEICE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Second International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering. Vol. 3. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 958–962. Retrieved 2025-08-24.
  The abstract notes: "In order to gain insights to the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics of the VoD systems of the four most popular P2P IPTV, namely PPTV, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live, this paper develops and deploys a passive network measurement with a sniffer tool in the experiment test bed designed, then analyses the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics. The key findings include: 1) PPTV uses TCP protocol with port 80 to send the video streaming, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live use UDP protocol with Non-well-known port to send and receive the video traffic, 2) The download rate of PPTV, PP Stream and Kankan is periodic, QQ live does not show any obvious pattern, 3) CCDF of the download-peers lifetime of PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live follow a Weibull distribution."
5. Wang, Wenxian; Chen, Xingshu; Wang, Haizhou; Zhang, Qi; Wang, Cheng (2014-03-19). "Measurement and Analysis of P2P IPTV Program Resource". The Scientific World Journal. Vol. 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/101702. ProQuest 1561736104.
  The article notes: "PPTV and QQLive only offer 6-level popularity. Thus, we must normalize the number of viewers according to the number of online viewers of various IPTV applications. In June 2010, the maximum viewers of PPStream, UUSee, PPTV, and QQLive are about 20.0, 2.0, 11.0, and 6.6 million, respectively. ... While hierarchy depth distribution of QQLive is quite different from that of other applications, its 4-hierarchy programs account for 57.22%. Thus, its programs are prone to used short name."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow QQLive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard's sources and no evidence of a WP:BEFORE by the nominator, who created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more - see
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive370#IP improperly PROD'ing 50-100 software articles per week
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi (software)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://uit.stanford.edu/storage/wasabi-cloud-storage

2. https://www.cloudwards.net/wasabi-review/

Are these links referring to the subject of the article? Thanks Kvinnen (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, these do not seem to be related to this article. Clenpr (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also been an ongoing problem with PRODs which has not stopped since this ANI report several months ago:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive370#IP improperly PROD'ing 50-100 software articles per week
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ without prejudice against speedy renomination. The nom has been warned about this type of low-effort nomination. Owen× ☎ 23:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traverso DAW

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ without prejudice against speedy renomination. The nom has been warned about this type of low-effort nominations. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vuforia Augmented Reality SDK

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Video 1

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in depth in multiple independent secondary sources, including many books, some of which I have now cited in the article. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per work by DigitalIceAge and WP:HEY. See also WP:BEFORE for what to do before nominating at AfD. (There are usually better solutions than deletion.) -- GreenC 16:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ without prejudice against speedy renomination. The nom has been warned about this type of low-effort nomination. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XPlay

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. Drive-by nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yenka

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Education, and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NSOFTWARE, without prejudice to the issue flagged by Dclemens. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With a valid Delete !vote having been entered, this no longer qualifies for a speedy keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HFSLIP

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable independent sources could be found except for a brief description on Softpedia, whose directory contains practically every piece of software. This article was previously a redirect after being merged in 2012 with Software remastering. I have restored the article and undone the merge; the article should have been completely deleted instead of merged because it is WP:UNDUE to mention specific software in a much more general article without strong reliable independent sources (at which point it would be independently notable anyways). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Truthnope (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Analytics

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

No significant coverage to be found. Just a lot of press releases. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Georgia (U.S. state). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. With the nomination withdrawn, I now see a consensus to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NetPresenz

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

Unfortunately this seems to have next to no secondary sources covering it, making it fail WP:PRODUCT. The only thing that'd be close is [4], but it's not verifiable as a self-published (open wiki) source. There's also [5] which is honestly pretty good despite being a blog. Giving the benefit of the doubt and calling its author a subject-matter expert, we still are pretty weak in terms of "sustained" coverage.

Searching for FTPd doesn't seem to reveal much either besides an unrelated FTP server for the 3DS, but it's possible it's just really buried? Perryprog (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, as 4meter4 was able to dredge up some offline sources that I did a crummy job of looking for. (Many thanks!) That combined with the online sources below is certainly more than enough coverage in my opinion. Perryprog (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Perryprog
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Currently referenced manual^[1]	Primary		✘ No
Macintosh repository^[2]		User-generated content	✘ No
Macworld^[3]	Weird that it says "NetPresenz is available [...] at macworld.com" but meh.	Macworld good.	✔ Yes
Happymacs^[4]		~ Blog, but it's a pretty good blog!	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

^ [1]
^ "NetPresenz - Macintosh Repository". www.macintoshrepository.org. Retrieved 2025-08-23.
^ Hawn, Matthew (May 1996). "NetPresenz 4.0: Internet server on a shoestring". Macworld. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 55. ISSN 0741-8647.
^ happymacs (2014-07-09). "Networking Your Classic Macintosh with Windows, Part 3 – Using NetPresenz and Fetch". Quadras, Cubes and G5s. Retrieved 2025-08-23.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. Perryprog (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- Sources for this seems scarce, do see it being mentioned here and there but no obvious SIGCOV from my websearches so far, no hits from Google News at all, interestingly using Wikipedia Library and got this, though seems like a one-off, at most if an ATD must be done, could this be merged to File Transfer Protocol ?.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't seem to work for me, but following your lead I assume it's "NetPresenz 4.0: Internet server on a shoestring"? That looks pretty excellent—I think that combined with the blog post could be something, though it's definitely a stretch. Including a mention of it in FTP's article would definitely be neat since it is nice to have some reference to old software like this. I've added a source assessment table above to summarize what's been found. (Edits welcome.) Perryprog (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources covering the topic. Hitesh Thakrani (talk)
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV from multiple offline book sources. There's actually quite a lot of coverage on this from publications extending from the mid 1990s (which our article misses that it started then) and into the early 2000s. This was one of the main Mac web servers of the latter half of the 1990s which is when it was most relevant. Some examples include these books:

Hart, David L. (2000). The Cross-Platform Mac Handbook: Keeping Your Mac in a Digital World. Prentice Hall PTR. pp. 79–81. ISBN 9780130850881.

Anthony, Tobin (1996). Building and Maintaining an Intranet with the Macintosh. Hayden Books. pp. 286–289. ISBN 9781568302799.

Hart, David L.; Bourne, Philip E. (1998). Mac OS 8 Web Server Cookbook. Prentice Hall PTR. pp. 136–148. ISBN 9780135200162.

There is also more coverage in Macworld in the 1990s. Note to search for other sources under the software's original name FTPd. Due to the era of this server at the dawn of the internet; most of the materials are likely to be offline. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's wild! I guess I'm showing my age a bit with the assumption that because this was a piece of software from the early internet era then clearly it'd at the least have materials about it archived online, so thank you very much for digging these up! While I'm only able to couch-access the second one via the Open Library, it does indeed have a decent section on NetPresenz, and even without the other two sources that's enough for me combined with the online sources mentioned previously. I'll go and withdraw my nomination, though this isn't eligible to speedy close due to the above votes—that being said, Lorraine Crane and Hitesh Thakrani do see the above in case it changes your position. Perryprog (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog Yes, even with digitization greatly improving access to the sources of this era it is often surprising what sourcing is still not available online. The early internet era was also highly susceptible to WP:Link rot. For this reason, a good rule of thumb is to not assume anything pre-2008 is well documented online. There are often better and more offline materials than one might guess.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-changing my vote given the what our fellow Wikipedians have dug up so far to support the articles Notability. Thanks Perryprog for updating me on this.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mockingboard. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phasor (sound synthesizer)

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

Unsourced since 2016. JSTOR search found nothing, which makes me doubt its notability per WP:SOFTWARE:

Not discussed in reliable sources at all from what I can see (after looking in JSTOR, Google News, and Google Scholar). Of the external links in the article, 4 of them are from the course that created it (which makes them primary) and the other is a wiki (WP:USERG). Thus it fails criterion 1 of WP:NSOFTWARE.
I was not able to find any third-party manuals, failing criterion 3.
I was unable to find any sources specifically mentioning Phasor by name, let alone reviews, so it fails criterion 4. Gommeh 📖/🎮 19:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 📖/🎮 19:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A google books search returns some hits, such as this, but I'm unable to see a full preview of it. Also 22 hits within this journal, and another journal entry here but again am unable to preview either. Nil🥝 05:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is just a trivial mention. I was unable to preview the journal that you said had 22 hits, so I can't say much about that. The third one appears to be a promotional advertisement of some kind, but without being able to see a full preview I can't be sure. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mockingboard, perhaps, as it's already described as a compatible card there? There doesn't seem to be much magazine coverage - most search results are for adverts. There is a full review in The Apple IIGS Buyer's Guide Fall 1987 (with a summary repeated in later issues), and two paragraphs in a roundup of sound hardware in InCider October 1989. Otherwise there are only a handful of passing mentions in articles about software that would work with it. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere, perhaps Mockingboard. It's old and niche enough that unless someone turns up a compelling piece or two in some forgotten magazine, it won't get bigger or better, but it's like just nearly on the cusp of viable (with barely any squinting). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ansarada

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are not very strong, and the subject’s notability is unclear. The page comes across as promotional for the company. Oftermart (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Oftermart (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is rather promotional and lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At least a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some sources with coverage: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. No opinion about whether this is sufficient enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. It might be. Or it might not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tokamak (software)

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

Little to no notability. Only sources are primary sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Physics, and Software. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V as is, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Little record of this engine online. Looks to have been abandoned in 2008, never "finished". A couple people made short YouTube videos after this date but nothing of note. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physics engine#Engines – Where it's mentioned. Svartner (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is only mentioned in the engine list without a source. I think it needs to be expanded with some text to make sense here. IgelRM (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling Mind

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

Creating nomination page per talk request, [11]. I've done my own WP:BEFORE, and I concur that it is not notable. Only articles reviewing this app/organization seem to be blogs, non-reliable and full of promotional language, as well as the Apple Appstore entries and their own website. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Psychology, Software, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No conflict of interest. The application offers a diverse range of free meditations and is no different from many paid services of the same kind; it’s a venture worth documenting. Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Roxy the dog 14:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG, This appears to be a WP:UPE 200.46.55.51 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pyjs

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

Entirely sourced from primary sources, published by the primary software developer WP:COI (Luke Leighton, aka User: Lkcl). No indication of nobility from reliable, third-party sources. Seems there was only pre-release product version, with the most recent being 0.8.1a, all back in 2012.

Looking at the references, they all fall into the following categories:

Primary source (5 of 6 ref are to the website of the project)
A single listing on an external website about a presentation the software author is giving.

For transparency I recently removed the following "broken" reference links from the page: (diff)

A link to a broken "google group" -- forums are not reliable sources for establishing notability.
A link to a broken github page (a primary source anyways)
A directory listing site at sourceforge, redirecting to the current project site
A very broken archive.org link, no idea on the content, but no way to rescue it either, but based on the ref tag, it appears to be self-published content.

Looking at google search using the project website[12] shows nothing to establish notabiliity aside from it being a small open source project with no sigcov.

It does look like it was maybe slightly more known under its former name, Pyjamas. But after it was renamed to pyjs, there is no SIGCOV for this new name, making it perhaps a bad WP:NAMECHANGE.

It is clear that Pyjamas did exist and was used, and is known about -- it has been referenced in "directory style" listings - both small and large, however, WP:NINI applies here. What is at question is if there are any reliable, third-party sources talking about this project that make it notable aside from any other open-source project with authors who are interested in self-promotion.

There was a prior AfD at [[13]] that NAC closed as keep, although a fresh look at the arguments presented, and the number of non-qualifying votes (SPA, etc), makes the outcome questionable at least.

TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Software. TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't at all my area and it is like reading a foreign language in the materials cropping up in searches. All I can say is, I got a promising number of hits in google scholar and just a few in google books using this as a search: "Pyjamas" software Python to JavaScript . Computer languages are not my expertise so I can't evaluate these materials. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a developer who was using pyjamas back when, I'd like to add that there was some definite controversy involved in the project. It was an up-and-coming light-weight alternative to GWT and had real momentum before experiencing a "hostile fork", described by some as a hijack^[1]. The infrastructure and project identity were taken over without the original lead developer’s consent, leading to a collapse of both the original and forked efforts. This dramatic turn of events is arguably the most historically significant aspect of the project, and one that deserves documentation. I strongly support keeping the article for historical and archival purposes, and would encourage expanding it with sourced details about the fork and its impact. From (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some very interesting backstory, and something I wasn't able to track down... A few follow-up questions, based on what you provided: (1) can you provide multiple reliable source reporting on the controversy; (2) does that mean that pyjs is a fork of Pyjammas -- and thus should not inherit the possible notability of the base code. It seems like Luke was trying to claim "ownership" of Pyjs, when it sounds like it wasn't so much of a rename, as rather someone else forked it, and move the project forward without him, but he is still trying to claim fame for it? Are their reliable sources to back up those claims? It is ironic that Luke appears to have suffered from this on his other projects like Libre-SOC and even some of that spilling over in his behavioral issues on here. It would seem that if Pyjs is a fork, and Pyjammas is really the notable project, perhaps it should be moved back to Pyjammas, and Pyjs be left only as a relatively small part of the history? TiggerJay (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@From - just checking to see if you have any reliable sources regarding those statements? Also as someone who used Pyjamas "back when" and hasn't contributed on Wikipedia for over 7 years, can you help me understand how you became aware of this discussion? Forgive the accusation tone, but it is just astonishing that you'd simply stumble into this. Thanks! TiggerJay (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time-dependent neutronics and temperatures

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

Two sentence page on a computer code with no obvious notability, fails WP:NSOFT. Notability was tagged in 2012; PROD, PROD2 Aug 12-13 2025, at that time the page had no sources. Notability was contested with the claim "Further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar", and PROD/PROD2 removed. Contestor added one source that is not specific to the topic -- it describes a code comparison, not the code. That source is cited 2 times. The current article is advertising/promo for the code and the authors, and would be better included as a sentence in Neutron transport#Computational methods. If major WP:HEY is done to show that this code has major uses in ongoing reactor design I would retract the nomination. I do not see sufficient coverage on Google Scholar to merit retaining it. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Physics, and Software. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport lists 33 computer codes, 2 of which (MCNP & Serpent (software)) have pages with 17 and 5 sources respectively. This code is only mentioned in the "See Also".Ldm1954 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, I haven't had much luck finding sources that talk about this software as a thing, rather than mentioning how they used it for a particular problem. I don't think that's enough to merit an article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everyone knows that we have never published original research such as this. There are many other places, but not us. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - responding to Ldm1954's comments:

First, my "further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar" comment was meant to be humorous; a quick look at the neutron transport equation shows neutron flux calculations are mathematically vexatious which is why multiple computer codes have been developed. At least they sure were vexatious to me many years ago.

I don't know if this code is used much now for reactor design; high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are not a hot research area now compared to other reactor types. There's just one HGTR design, the Xe-100, among the several dozen new reactor designs under development. All the papers that use this code were published a while ago when computers were slower; I'd hope HGTR engineers are using something newer nowadays. That said, our rules don't require this code be in wide use now to be notable; if something was once notable, it still is now.

The paper I cited^[14] is relevant; it compares this code to a newer code. This and other papers^{[15][16][17][18]} demonstrate this was a widely used program.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I just look at the article, the AfD and the information that's out there and check them against our rules.

All this said, I concede not in the same league technically as Ldm1954 (Laurence D. Marks) so I may be wrong about this one. It took a lot of work to understand neutron transport years ago and I've forgotten the details since. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B., as a quick clarification, this page was tagged for both notability and no sources since at least 2013. You removed the notability tag on August 13 2025, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply here. Checking the 4 sources you provided, on Google Scholar their citation numbers are 8, 5, 5, 8. Sorry, but those numbers are not strong indicators that the scientific community has considered this code to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: to be fully WP:NPOV, a Google Scholar search on TINTE code does find a few better cited papers, including this one with 95 cites. However, that is not a big number. It can be compared to MCNP where the main paper has 3697 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was prevously PROD'd so a Soft deletion is not possible and we need to hear from more editors. I'm also not sure if A.B. is arguing for a Keep but they know Wikipedia as much as anyone so I assume they would have stated this fact if it was their stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, thanks for the compliment about my wiki-savvy; if only I was still as nuclear engineering savvy, I'd be more helpful. My comment was not a keep but rather a clarifying response to Ldm1954's remarks about my PROD removal. I've since found a book on high temperature gas reactors that uses TINTE and I'm going to study it. For now, I'm inclined to say TINTE qualifies as notable but from an editorial standpoint, we may be better served putting it in the list at Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport, then redirecting it there. I like redirects and lists since they help densify our content for easier maintenance without giving up much content. I realize this is still not an answer for you but it's where I'm at now.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note, as Ldm1954 pointed out, that the Neutron transport page only mentions TINTE in its See also section, potentially making a merge-less redirect problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, that is not a problem. We would remove the See Also and add TINTE to the existing list of codes with a ref. I am OK with a merge+redirect. I think A. B. may be OK with that from his comments, and perhaps Bearian? Ldm1954 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- A merge and redirect is appropriate for original content. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge and redirect per Ldm1954. I'm sorry I didn't get time to review the HGTR book but I think this will work fine. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for now per above. This could almost certainly be a reasonable short article forever, but it'll take someone with the time and energy to dig out and build it. For now merge. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives where the subject is mentioned. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Linux

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

Article only cites non-independent sources. When searching for more, I did find ostensibly independent sources, but all the web ones failed WP:CORPTRIV: many of them were just product line changes/announcements or other "trivial" coverage, while the Google Books results were primarily about Asianux with Miracle Linux just being a namedrop; thus, the subject does not meet WP:NCORP. (And yes, I did check Japanese sources by using Firefox's built-in translator, which isn't great, but allowed me to assess them.) OutsideNormality (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. OutsideNormality (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / lean delete: I find some passing mentions (1 2) but I am unable to find any SIGCOV. Perhaps in Japanese. Likely delete. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was PROD'd so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives – Where the distro is mentioned. Svartner (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fabrik (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article consists of only two lines that states that it is a programming language, some names of former users, and provides no indication of why it is notable. It also lacks much in the way of meaningful coverage and was previously nominated for deletion around 15 years ago (and seen little revision since then). Packerfan386beer here 06:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been to AFD in the past and so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Dan Ingalls: While not hugely influential itself it seems to have gotten interest in the 1990s. It is mentioned in the first book about OOP, and at this 1997 conference on Object oriented languages. this and this are both written by the creator and can help provide more details (the second one is published so a bit better of a source). Moritoriko (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of VoIP software

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

I'm electing to nominate this for deletion as a failure of WP:V and WP:OR, as well as large amounts of outdated and unsourced information. A majority of the existing sources are taken from corporate websites or changelogs, which do not provide reliable secondary coverage. Many of the "latest releases" listed here are inaccurate, and defunct programs such as Skype are still prominently featured. In its current state, this article doesn't appear to be useful, and I don't think editing to improve it is worthwhile due to the necessary upkeep. Readers would be better served by individual articles. MidnightMayhem (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I come down on Keep here. Addressing the nomination first, WP:V is about sources in the world, and that doesn't seem like an issue. I'm not seeing what's OR about copying bits of data without interpretation. Outdated isn't a reason for deletion. Some unsourced, but a ton of sourced information isn't a problem either. That said, I can't find good standards for what kind of data to include in a comparison. This type of article is common, and even listed at WP:SALAT (the name or title List of Xs is still preferable to Table of Xs or Comparison of Xs (though the latter may be appropriate for articles that are actual tables of data comparing numerous features, e.g. Comparison of Linux distributions).). Presumably it does not mean that data about Linux distributions must always come from independent sources, which will of course be more likely to become outdated, but I'm just not sure. There's a lot not to like here, but I think it generally falls into WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP as, at the end of the day, there are plenty of sources out there which treat VoIP software as a group sufficient to get by WP:LISTN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some other "comparison of software" articles, this one is certainly notable and written properly. Auto5656 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article would benefit from further discussion to establish whether it should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[manual-1] [1]

[macrepo-2] "NetPresenz - Macintosh Repository". www.macintoshrepository.org. Retrieved 2025-08-23.

[macworld-3] Hawn, Matthew (May 1996). "NetPresenz 4.0: Internet server on a shoestring". Macworld. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 55. ISSN 0741-8647.

[happymacs-4] ymacs (2014-07-09). "Networking Your Classic Macintosh with Windows, Part 3 – Using NetPresenz and Fetch". Quadras, Cubes and G5s. Retrieved 2025-08-23.

[5] ttps://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]