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

Knockri Inc.

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

Unambiguous promotional brochure for this software company, and seems to be generated by AI. Nothing about these references rises to the level of WP:NCORP either. We have no room for more advertisements. MediaKyle (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No sufficient valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. I agree with the nominator as well. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: pretty clear signs of AI, article needs to be rewritten from scratch if notable. For notability, I checked VentureBeat (passing mention), Financial post (a little more in-depth, but not sure if reliable), and Bloomberg (an interview, so primary), CBC news (also an interview). Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HyperIn

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacking significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Finland. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just noting that the history on this one is a mess for anyone that's confused. It was created at HyperIn, which I draftified to Draft:HyperIn. The page creator moved it back to mainspace at HyperIn Inc and self-draftified it to Draft:HyperIn Inc. They then cut-paste moved it to the original redirect from my draftification at HyperIn. MCE89 (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade It looks like you've deleted all of these except Draft:HyperIn, which is now a redirect to a deleted page. Sorry for the mess here, but I think whichever one of these contains the actual page history (Draft:HyperIn Inc?) should probably be undeleted? I think that at the point where you deleted it R2 probably didn't apply to HyperIn, since the page creator had cut-paste moved the content from Draft:HyperIn Inc which they blanked. MCE89 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted HyperIn Inc because the author blanked the page. Thank you for pointing out this mess of history, though. I'm going to ask another administrator who is more familiar with managing page histories to take a look at this. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this mess further:

This page was G5,G11'd [1], only to be recreated 15 minutes later by another account.

Also relevant, this laundry request 🧦. Nil🥝 14:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt. This page was originally PROD-deleted in Feb 2024. It was recently recreated by a sockpuppet of a banned UPE and G11'd, only to be recreated 15 minutes after deletion by another sock of that same UPE. The company does not meet WP:NCORP, and the article is entirely promotional. Nil🥝 23:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Annotations

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

The article is supported by 3 primary sources, all of which are documentation pages published by Jakarta EE. I didn't find reliable coverage on Google Scholar or Google News, though I did find several passing mentions. The article may also fail WP:NOT, as in, Wikipedia is not software documentation. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE - I found a bit of discussion under its older names (JSR 250, "Common Annotations for the Java Platform"), but not sufficient coverage to justify a standalone article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE. My WP:BEFORE search finds only references which are primary to the subject and not sufficient to establish notability. So, redirect as per viable WP:ATD. If secondary and independent references to the subject are found then please ping me. Fade258 (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta EE Charlie (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wispr Flow

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cited sources are mostly blogs, PR-based articles, funding rounds, launch of products, all come under WP:CORPTRIV. Lacks direct and in-depth articles to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. jolielover♥talk 07:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IViz Security

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

Contains unreferenced/promotional content Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Karnataka, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being acquired seems to be the only noteworthy event in the company history. Brandon (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CDBurnerXP

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This program was quite popular as an alternative to Nero and Alcohol 120 in the 2000s [2]. I think the article is valid as a historical record. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popular dos not equal to meet the Wikipedia GNG guidelines. They are 2 different things. Cassiopeia talk 22:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by TechRadar: [3], PC World: [4], c't magazine: [5], Articles by PCNET (Turkish magazine): [6], [7], [8]. I didn't check all 352 hits on archive.org, there could be more but those should be enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opendisc

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 28 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) 14:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really my area of knowledge but I am struggling to find any sources discussing the topic at any length. The current sources in the article are not RS. Best I can find is this book in French (I don't read French though) [9] and a passing mention in an old teaching handbook [10]. Neither of these indicate notability to me. I don't really understand the arguments for keeping this article above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The aforementioned book discusses the technology in some depth (verified with Google Translate) and I was able to find more in Billboard and Music Week (subscription required). Beyond that it's weak. Since it's a French technology, there might be more coverage in Francophone sources, but that is beyond my expertise. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuickPlay

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 28 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) 14:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nomination is barely highlighting why the article should be deleted. Excelse (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to HP Pavilion, which already has a section dedicated to this feature under HP Pavilion#Specialized features. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Product software implementation method

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

In 2010 there was a request on the talk page for someone to cleanup the article but it seems no one is interested enough to add any sources. I would not be surprised if there is another article covering the subject but if so I don’t know what it is Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a possible COPYVIO, can someone do a check for that? I'm not sure if I have the relevant tools or how to do it. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio unlikely https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Product+software+implementation+method&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah perfect, thank you! Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the negative for COPYVIO I am still inclined to vote delete as the article itself is a combination of WP:NOT essay text and WP:OR, all of it uncited, some of it incomprehensible. There may be some stuff worth saving here - nearly impossible to find it though. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PureMessage

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is suitable for a redirect/merge to Sophos. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced article, so that doesn't help... I find mostly mentions of institutions using the software [11], not helpful for notability. Some mentions in conference papers or journals [12], [13], but not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would prefer a bit more of a robust nomination reason, but regardless, this does in fact fail on WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EffectsLab Pro

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 27 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) 14:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apidog

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

non-notable software/software company COOLIDICAE🕶 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If we look at the sources, they are neither reliable nor independent. Such random websites have been presented as sources, fails WP:NCORP. Baqi:) (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:NCORP. Would need more and better sources in order to pass. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GraphEdit

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DirectShow: This utility doesn't appear to meet GNG on its own but it is frequently discussed alongside its parent SDK. MidnightMayhem (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DirectShow as already suggested in my deprod comment. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DVB Dream

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 26 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) 14:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until someone spends some time formulating a reasoned delete argument. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Letter Access

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

Fails WP:GNG There are no reliable sources to justify a redirect. Clenpr (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. jolielover♥talk 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Where is there a WP:redirect? ‣Andreas•⚖ 10:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this article history. Someone removed the previous PROD suggesting a redirect. Clenpr (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clenpr I'm not aware of any policy that requires reliable sources to support a redirect. What are you referring to? ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of such a policy either but it sounds like a good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Veritas Technologies#Products and services. Since DLA was sold only as software bundled with DVD burners there's not much in the way of coverage beyond mentions. But there are enough of these mentions out there to make it a plausible search term. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Veritas Technologies#Products and services per DigitalIceAge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:08, 1 September 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 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.

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 [14], this [15] 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]

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]

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 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: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. 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]

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[21] 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 [[22]] 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^[23] is relevant; it compares this code to a newer code. This and other papers^{[24][25][26][27]} 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]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

[1]