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:
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.
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 [2], but it's not verifiable as a self-published (open wiki) source. There's also [3] 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]
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}}.
*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]
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. ISBN9780130850881.
Anthony, Tobin (1996). Building and Maintaining an Intranet with the Macintosh. Hayden Books. pp. 286–289. ISBN9781568302799.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!17:47, 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.
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.
Delete: An article created and developed by a succession of single-purpose accounts at the end of which the article is little more than a product feature site supported by primary sources. Appearance as a niche player in a Gartner MQ (CMSwire commentary, 2012) is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability for a product. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 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.
None of the concepts / explaination of the topic are cited in any way
None of the inline references even reference the term "permute instructions" but only specific subsets
Only one among many of the wiki-linked articles on this page previously had used the term "permute instruction" until this editor added that term to the linked page.
The lead sentence cites an Intel document (page 5-356), and the cited page does not support any of the claims of the lead, instead that page about The FPCLASSPS instruction checks the packed single precision floating-point values -- which is unrelated to permute instructions -- furthermore, you cannot find the term "permute instructions" anywhere in that 5,000+ page document.
Admittedly there is some research that shows Permute instruction as a phrase referenced, but those articles seem to be referecning what is already covered in Gather/scatter article.
Looking at the hatnote added to Gather/scatter which links back to Permute instructions[10] the editor claims add disambiguation reference "Register Gather Scatter" is actually also known as a vector permute, however my research still returned "gather/scatter" related articles with no direct refernece to the term permute instructions.
When considering the existing, well sourced, MOS conforming article titled Gather/scatter (vector addressing) which seems to be about the exact same concept, there seems no reason to keep this unsourced variant.
Of marginal note, the editor who created this article has been INDEF, and one of the things brought up at ANI was the pervasive editing in these areas but failing WP:CIR and exhibiting WP:BIT. His arguments in article talk and edits to technical articles exhibit WP:OR instead of citing reliable sources, this article is a perfect example of it.
What I've observed at other articles, and what seems to be here, is that the editor has been engaged in expanding articles of miniscule differences that they believe to be significant and then begin to boldly fork articles in an unsourced or poorly sourced way. This might be the case here.
Delete: WP:TNT. REAL_MOUSE_IRL is right. The article is misleadingly confusing and relies mainly on primary sources. It's unclear whether an article about this is necessary vs., e.g., a paragraph in SIMD under a list of common SIMD instructions. (This article combines both SIMD and non-SIMD instructions but there is not a lot to say about non-SIMD permutes) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:29, 19 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.
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]
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]
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.
These are secondary sources, independent of the subject, and provide non-trivial coverage beyond routine announcements. On that basis, I believe the article satisfies WP:GNG.
Um, except you did edit the page directly. You actually moved it to mainspace after it was twice declined at AfC. That aside, the sources you provide are 1) a routine announcement about the company, not in-depth about the subject of the page, 2) a promotional article that is likely paid media, not independent, and 3) an interview. None of these can be used to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable individual. Sources are all PR puffery, and nothing comes close to being an independent publication. What we have in those sources are exaggerated marketing. Patre23 (talk) 07:25, 18 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.
Delete- most of the existing citations seems to be primary sources, tried searching more, none from Google News, basic websearch does seem to come up a lot its name, but have yet to see SIGCOV article review for it. Maybe anyone more familiar with Russian can help find such articles? otherwise delete for me.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:00, 19 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.
Fails WP:NBIO, there is no significant coverage of this person, only brief mentions that he designed some software (e.g. [12]). Getting an asteroid named after him does not count towards notability. There are two articles about software that he designed (NOV (computers) and C News), so a redirect might not be desirable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It seems like he barely passes the knife's edge of a notable person/scholar. While there isn't significant coverage, we see some scholarly coverage as it relates to academic papers that are sourced, a handful of interviews, and major contributor/leader on several projects suchas Plan 9, as welll as the NOM mentioned NOV (computers) and C News. These are all non-trivial systems -- and NOV is still utalized today over 30 years later. I would agree the star naming is mostly trivia generally speaking, OTOH, since it was named in his honor by a university in another country, it is clear he has some degree of notability in academic circles. The artcile itself has plenty of room for copy-editing and some improvement, but I don't think this is one that we should delete. TiggerJay(talk)06:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is mainly relevant to WP:NACADEMIC#1, The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, but he doesn't meet that bar. NOV is not notable in an academic context. C News is mentioned in some academic papers, but not to the point where it's a significant new concept, technique or idea as described in WP:NACADEMIC note 1b. Note 1h states Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with Helpful Raccoon he does not qualify under WP:NPROF#C1. An h-factor of 3 and 321 total citations is about a factor of 15 less that what is normally considered as a pass in his area. If you look at people cited in his area they are way higher -- it is a high citation field of research. Beyond that I see nothing for WP:NBIO, as the nom says.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:05, 18 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.
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[13] 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 [[14]] 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.
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]
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.
These sources provide independent coverage and analysis of NavaShield, establishing that it meets Wikipedia's software notability guidelines (WP:NSOFT / WP:NPRODUCT). No YouTube videos or unreliable removal sites are being used. Therefore, NavaShield should be retained. Yousuf31 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yousuf31: If you wanted to support reliability, you would want to provide 3 reliable, independent sources which discuss NavaShield in depth - linking to the home pages of popular antivirus websites is not helpful for this purpose. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:23, 17 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.
I'm inclined to think that both of them are pretty close in their notability, such that we either keep both (with a merge) or delete both. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 14 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.
Delete. Badly-sourced and off-topic content makes this unpromising for cleanup and makes an unconvincing case that there is something specific and encyclopedic to say about this job title. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 17 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 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.
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]
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]
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[16]is relevant; it compares this code to a newer code. This and other papers[17][18][19][20] 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.
@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]
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, LizRead!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]
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]
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.
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]
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, LizRead!Talk!03:55, 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.
Delete: Seems sources just have WP:ROUTINE coverage and not able to find many sources with such details mentioned on the page. "Digital wellbeing" in many reliable sources is for broader concept of digital wellbeing and not just "a feature on Android developed by Google". Asteramellus (talk) 23:32, 19 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 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 here06:15, 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, LizRead!Talk!05:12, 19 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]
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.
Delete: Fails WP:GNG per nom. User about Inedo (company) and its software products have previously been deleted. Also logo for Inedo only see Image with questionable encyclopedic content from Inedo for more logo details.49.151.187.185talk14:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get review of Helpful Raccoon's sources please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:45, 18 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 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.
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]
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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:53, 17 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.
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. The arguments to delete are substantially stronger. The challenges to the posted sources have not been rebutted or overcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most streaming services are handled directly through the television or digital media player's own operating system, not this hallucinated explanation that somehow thinks the entire streaming service's billing and CMS is actually on the consumer device, which would not be a proper way to manage an application. This is simply an article which convolutes back-office functions somehow into a consumer's device. Nathannah • 📮19:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and SALT: Not convinced this isn't notable, but author refuses to use the draft space to work things out to where it is ready for main article space. UtherSRG(talk)00:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think your vote makes sense. You cannot technically say "SALT" if you are suggesting Draftify. From what I understand SALT means to protect the page from recreation. You should revise and remove the SALT part. Mmarietaa (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to SALT is to remove your main article space editing privileges and move privileges, requiring you to use the draft space. You don't want to go down that route. - UtherSRG(talk)14:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion post my !vote have lead me to believe this just isn't notable, so consider my D&S option to just be an alternative to delete, which I now believe to be the correct choice. - UtherSRG(talk)23:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This is a complete rewrite with better sources and 100% human-written, no AI. If you compare it to the previous version, the main issue raised was that it lacked citations and appeared to be AI-generated. These concerns have been fully addressed in the current version. Mmarietaa (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is covered sufficiently in Streaming media. That article provides technical information; this one reads like a vague marketing blurb. Note that of the sources here, 1, 5, and 8 are marketing pieces, 3 & 4 are not about OTT, 2 is a mere mention. There does not seem to be enough to separate this technology from the discussion of streaming. Lamona (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is wondering about IT Wire, its about page reads: "About iTWire - Advertising, Sponsored Posts, Editorial, Press Releases, iTWireTV videos interviews and Outreach Promotional Posts." Lamona (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of Middleware in Streaming media. I see mention of OTT, but that is much different than "OTT Middleware." if you think that I am mistaken, please point out which exact sections talk about it. Goodboyjj (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I also don't find it in there now, so I was obviously looking at a different page (too many tabs open). It was adjacent to that page, conceptually; I apologize. However, I still don't see sufficient sources (nor sufficient text) to convince me that the middleware requires a standalone article rather than being included in another article, perhaps Over-the-top media service in the technology area. All of the sources that I find talk about it as a component of an OTT service, not something separate. For example, "middleware acts as the central nervous system of an OTT platform". I also only find product promotional articles on the middleware. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This version is much improved from the last time. I voted keep last time and still vote keep based on these citations: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.Goodboyjj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read each reference in detail. I am having trouble downloading 3. I am very troubled that reference 4 seems to just be "thrown in" (perhaps by an AI to look good?). --A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)20:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(2) is on ACM, so it's reliable, but it only discusses a specific architecture: "VoDKATV, an IPTV/OTT middleware". It's not even specific to OTT. (6) doesn't discuss architecture at all. (7) is another version of (2). (8) is written by someone not in their staff directory and contains a spammy link to a commercial service. Probably a sponsored/promo piece. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to delete as there is just no good sourcing in the article currently, and there is a >50% chance this article was created for spam purposes.@OwenX did the previously deleted article cite wurl.com or lightcast.com? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:17, 15 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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Primary
