Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

Portable object (computing)

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

I'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge. Looking on Google Scholar, this seems to be a different concept than Portable Distributed Objects. The article could use some clarification for its uses, particularly for translation, but I see enough notability for it to stay. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrionix

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

Fails WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I previously tagged this for notability, and can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references lack WP:SIGCOV of the business. Brandon (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deeplink (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for promotional content since October 2014, and subjectivity since February 2015, the organisation has failed WP:NCORP as presented here and has been discussed twice before at AfD, with reasonably sparse participation. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Software, and New York. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NCORP for lacking significant coverage. Of the four TechCrunch articles, all heavily rely on public relations material and statements of company executives. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Perez, Sarah (2013-05-22). "Deeplink.me lets mobile users navigate through a 'web' of apps". TechCrunch.
This likely relies on PR material: "as Cellogic CEO Itamar Weisbrod explains…" being the most obvious tell, with the article also going into discussion of the internal deliberation of the company's tool development.
Perez, Sarah (2013-08-30). "Deeplink.me launches a retargeting network for mobile that sends users back to the apps they've already installed". TechCrunch.
"According to Cellogic CEO Itamar Weisbrod" again, this time with the executive's statements making up the bulk of the article.
Perez, Sarah (2013-11-18). "Deeplink.me brings Twitter card support to mobile developers without a web presence". TechCrunch.
This is a hilariously minor feature announcement: anyone with knowledge of Open Graph HTML tags knows that this is an incredibly basic feature, implementable in an hour, and TechCrunch's editorial staff should know that. The only reason it has an article is either because the company either paid TechCrunch to write it or because the magazine just copied a press release to rewrite for clicks.
Perez, Sarah (2014-02-04). "Mobile deep linking service Deeplink.me debuts a native ad SDK". TechCrunch.
More PR statements from Weisbrod. The article ends with an investor-focused pitch on how the company plans to turn a profit from this, a giveaway of paid/non-independent coverage in these types of articles on startups. Hilarious call to action in last paragraph is just links to the company's products.

TechCrunch's coverage of Deeplink was the main point of contention in the previous AfD, and I disagree with the assessment that these four articles are significant or independent coverage. They appear to be fairly uninteresting product announcements from a company CEO barely wrapped in the guise of an article.

None of the other sources appear to be reliable sources at all, so I've omitted them from the source review. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Worth noting all of those together counts as one according to WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeoCAD

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

Stub, and I am not seeing sources to expand this or that would suggest this meets WP:NSOFT. The best I found that meets SIGCOV is a blog review at [1], but that's hardly reliable. Then there are some passing mentions here and there and social media... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that review. There are many others that show notability. I have updated the page a bit and will add more updates. VectorVoyager (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can’t find any credible sources that would establish notability. There is one review by Michelle Woo, but their credentials aren’t clear which means that this review cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed auditory feedback

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I checked Stuttering therapy and Electronic fluency device and they do not seem to contain the information of the "Effects in people who do not stutter" and "Effects in non-humans" sections of the nominated article. YuniToumei (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New York. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: [2] is definitely SigCov. This book also uses it as an example. (I also found 3 perhaps–slightly-questionable sources: funding, funding, research. I think the last source is unfortunately just a ton of trivial mentions. Depending on how one reads the "trivial coverage" part of NCorp, the funding ones may or may not be SigCov as they both have in-depth and independent coverage of what the company does.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:PROMO. A search in google news did not yield anything significant. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, what about sources added to the article since its nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hungarian so hard for me to assess. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Commenthas a potential as over 100 mln downloads, and so on. WP NEXIST should be applied here before the final verdict. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-trivial coverage in Variety, Rest of World, and TechCrunch (meets RSP as being staff-written). Along with the sources in the article I think there's enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of world article counts, but the other two are routine coverage of raised capital, no? (WP:CORPTRIV) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was not aware of the detail in WP:CORPTRIV. If nothing else can be found it should probably be deleted, then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH may not fully meet RSP standards, even if written by a staff writer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source Assessment Table

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/			✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/	Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH	Trivial coverage on funding	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/		Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue	? Unknown
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}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about TechCrunch's reliability and revenue volume suggest a lack of understanding of the source assessment table provided above and the guidelines on trivial coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They just represent a difference of opinion in how to apply the community standards. The TC story is in depth and editorial in nature. And because we’re not a group of deeply confused people who think large sums of money are irrelevant to business notability, pointing out hundreds of millions in revenue is a useful reference point for the importance of the underlying subject. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]