Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:10, 11 May 2024

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.

Note that 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

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages

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

There was an AfD on this previously that determined to keep this article on the basis that AfD is not a place to resolve sourcing concerns. I think there are sourcing concerns with respect to notablity, which is a valid reason to bring an AfD. I can't find any reliable article that actually makes comparisons between different AMP stacks. The two sources in the article are about individual stacks, and don't make any comparisons between different stacks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LAMP (software bundle) and redirect those that relate to AMP variants to LAMP (software bundle)#Variants. As HA has said, this article does not make any meaningful comparisons, so I don't see any objections against its inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere. I'm also pretty sure that we can find reliable sources that tell us these softwares are *AMP stacks for that platform.
After merging, redirects without mention can go through G8 or RfD later. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This is a list article, it doesn't need sourcing for each individual linked page. However, many of the linked articles have their own problems; in particular, WIMP (software bundle), AMPPS, Zend Server, and WampServer might not survive AFD. It seems plausible that either those pages might be merged here, or that, after some of them would be removed, there would not be enough content for an article separate from LAMP (software bundle). Until that is resolved, I think this should be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is long enough for its own article nor how there are enough mentions as a whole to meet WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aaron's comment above. I don't see how anything you brought up here pertains to WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are ten stand-alone articles on "LAMP variants that aren't on Linux", it seems reasonable that there would be a list of them somewhere (possibly at LAMP (software bundle) or BAPP rather than a stand-alone article, but somewhere). On the other hand, if six of those stand-alone articles are merged or deleted, the value of a list article is clearly decreased. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of stand-alone articles in a list and its notability have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Please read WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. - a longer list is more likely to fulfill a useful navigation purpose. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown nothing to indicate that this list fulfills any of those purposes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t see how a list of every combination is useful. Comparing the individual components makes much more sense. At most, this can be part of another article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can the nominator provide a link to th previous AFD on this article subject? That is typically included in a nomination statement or in a box by the nomination. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD can be found on the article's talk page, or by clicking here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAMP, thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PabloDraw

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this passes WP: N. Previous AfDs didn't reach a consensus, but not a single one of the Keep votes in any of those AfDs actually cites any notability guidelines. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems this may be yet another WP:BFDI situation. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching on Google, DDG, and Kagi, and archive.org texts turned up no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Also the article has been unreferenced since 2004. Previous keep votes weren't based on guidelines. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find coverage for this software package, so not meeting requirements. The other AfD votes don't seen to hold much weight with current guidelines, regardless, there isn't enough coverage to keep this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to List of software patents#Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientigo

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

Small patent troll that made a bit of an ephemeral stir 20 years ago when it tried to claim a patent on XML. Quickly sank back into obscurity. As a company it doesn't really do anything. 29 employees, 6 million revenue. No sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGCRIT tells us that sources for such companies must be presented with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Thus CORPDEPTH says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. No such sources exist. This is just a patent troll. Added a notability template in April to attempt to address the issues but this was summarily removed after a second report of the patent trolling was added (misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ based on coverage in CNET (note the second page) MIT Technology Review and eWeek. These are all NCORP-standard sources, giving extended coverage and analysis of Scientigo and the merits of their claims. ZDNet, although the source itself is short, even had a co-editor of XML (Tim Bray) briefly weigh in on the issue, which does show the trolling was considered a fairly big deal.

I think the complaint the company is just a patent troll and doesn't really do anything misses the point a little bit – the patent trolling is precisely what the company is notable for. I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary. The requirement is the company receives significant independent coverage in multiple sources; there's nothing about this coverage needing to take place over a prolonged period.

(misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020) 2005 is the publication date, 2020 is the archive date. – Teratix ₵ 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary—OK but the immediate next section is notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, so the question is, does SBST apply here? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide deeper analysis, not mere description; they don't fall into the category of routine coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism. I could see a reasonable argument this could be covered as part of a larger article (patent troll, XML or somewhere else), or that the article needs to be rewritten to be about the patent controversy rather than the company as such, but the nominator was pretty clear he doesn't think there are any sources providing deep and significant coverage on the topic and seeks deletion rather than any alternative. – Teratix ₵ 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of software patents § Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. A burst of coverage surrounding ridiculous claims spanning about two weeks is basically textbook SBST. We're not here to host articles on every single entity that attained 15 minutes of fame (or two weeks, as the case may be) because they announced something ridiculous for publicity, and just because it's not listed in WP:ORGTRIV doesn't mean it should be automatically accepted. I did find two WP:TRADES sources, but I don't think they overcome the presumption of non-independence. In fact, both of them — Econtent Magazine ("SourceWare: The Search Engine with Good Intentions", TWL ProQuest 213817847 and Equities Magazine (two articles, "Special Situations" and "The Secret of Scientigo", which were formerly both available online) — read as magazines publishing puff pieces. Willing to kick it to RSN though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable redirect/merger target, I'd support that. – Teratix ₵ 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that redirect too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per no notability provided. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of mentions in insider trade zines doe not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2024 (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, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SendPulse

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

Non-notable per WP:CORP. When I began to shovel out the marketing, I noticed that the references were all press releases and passing mentions. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only significant independent coverage I could find was a product review in The Motley Fool: [1], and the jury seems to be out at WP:RSN on whether they're a reliable source. Wikishovel (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Software, Advertising and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad masquerading as an article. For the Motley Fool article, I would say being unable to exclude that it's a paid article (Many or all of the products here are from our partners that compensate us.) would weigh against it, though does remind me I should probably bring up affiliate links at RSN at some point in the near future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. Creator blocked as such. MER-C 15:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. Nothing on the page or what I can find in a search show anything close to ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2024 (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!} 07:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statsmodels

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted and then recreated. I can't find anything on the talk page or the edit history that justifies recreating this article. Independently, this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet WP: N. I found some self-published tutorials that use statsmodels for a particular purpose, but this does not meet the standard for reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify for me the standard by which, say, scipy meets notability? Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to the discussion for this AfD? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example so I can understand better the standards by which notability for a software package might be determined in general. By at least some standards it seems to me that statsmodels is certainly notable, for instance the Seabold-Perktold article "Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python" has been cited on Google Scholar almost 5000 times. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally try to follow Wikipedia:Notability_(software) -- that paper wouldn't establish notability because it's written by the authors, but its citations might. If you can find citations that are independent of the author and discuss the library in-depth (as opposed to a simple mention of "we have X problem and we use the statsmodel library to solve it"), please add them to the article, and I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. If an AfD results in the improvement of an article, I have no issue with that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just a note that Soft Deletion is not an option here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a quick Google search, didn't find any significant coverage. Niafied (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Github and their own website are about the best sources I can pull up, nothing which is useful for notability. There are no software reviews or any kind of coverage. Delete for lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norconex Web Crawler

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

It's a shame, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the barest of mentions in independent RS. A redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers would probably be the best option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers: per nomination, currently fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage at all from independent sources Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 references listed which from independent sources.

Please also take a look at Mentions in Academic Research portion where academic research with mentions of the Crawler are listed. These are independent sources as well. OhTwadi (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which having barely significant coverage... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see other open source crawlers which have much less in terms of content and/or references and yet are considered fine. One example: MnoGoSearch OhTwadi (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could see, that article was considered "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination". Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Medium.com and blogs can’t establish notability. It would be better to redirect this article to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web

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

I found technical papers using the term "cooperative web" in a few different ways (e.g. as an extension to the semantic web), but this article refers to one or more attempts to create a collaborative real-time editor, particularly IBM's Blue Spruce project and its obscure successor OpenCoWeb. It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb, which stands for "Collaborative website", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 20 May 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuuxPlayer

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS under either names. Linked reviews are unreliable download reposting websites (the PCWorld one is blatantly an ad, the CNET one is actually CNET Download which is unreliable) and searching finds nothing other than similar download reposting sites. Previously deleted in AfD but recreated. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the analysis by the nom. The Cnet link is a download link and the PC World link is now 404, so I can't tell how useful it is/was. I can only find download sites or reviews on non-RS. I don't see notability with what's given in the article or in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little to be found online, let alone in reliable sources. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 23:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [2]. Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. !votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp×g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). "Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7". The Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."
2. Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). "Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě.cz [pl] (in Czech). Czech News Center. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."
3. Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). "Supermium". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě.cz [pl]. I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even says so explicitly. jp×g 🗯️ 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se-lib

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

Open source library without secondary coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. BrigadierG (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain further? What do you mean by secondary coverage? Can you give an example? Mudcap (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, all 5 criterion set out at WP:GNG - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For software in particular, there's discussion of the most likely forms that would take at WP:NSOFTWARE. BrigadierG (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SECONDARY explains secondary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added references from additional sources independent of the subject. Included explanations that the library was funded for development, is used regularly in the classroom in multiple classes, on research projects, and is the subject professional training venues. I could add more instances. These should all qualify. Thank you for the improvement suggestions. Mudcap (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the sources in the article seem to be independent. For example, this tutorial was taught by a lead developer of the library. Coverage from the organization funding the project is not independent either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was taught be a developer, but the tutorial was sponsored by the independent International Council of Systems Engineers, San Diego Chapter. They decided to run the tutorial for the sake of its members, spend resources for it, and it is the listed on their website. Doesn't that qualify as independent? Thanks. Mudcap (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not - WP:IIS BrigadierG (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any of the sources used aren't reliable or are passing mentions; I don't find anything extra about this software package, other than where to download it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge window

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

Essentially a WP:DICDEF that has been insufficiently sourced for over 8 years, and the only "source" provided is a forum post. If this concept is at all notable, then it can just be a one-sentence mention in software development process. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Karr O'Connor

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. Should have been deleted at the previous AfD four years ago. As one of the article's own sources reveals, the article was written by O'Connor's colleagues and the AfD was influenced by off-wiki canvassing. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Disability, Computing, and Software. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the AfD I'm referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Karr O’Connor (with the fancy apostrophe). – Teratix ₵ 16:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of the arguments there about using WordPress a a source for their employee are valid at this point in time; they are primary and not useful other than for basic confirmation of certain biographical details (not proving notability). Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the Word Press association could have some notability context, but I don't find any sourcing for this individual. What's used in the article now are non-RS or things associated with World Press. I can't find any mention of this person in what we'd consider RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2024 (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 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HitmanPro

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources and a press release. Tagged non-notable for 9 years without improvement. Previously dePRODed in 2009 claiming software is fairly widenly used and thus probably notable - this is irrelevant unless sourcing is provided, which it hasn't for 15 years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In this current state, I can't tell why it hasn't be deleted since. To be honest such like this, remains till ages and no improvement. It doesn't meet our general notability guidelines and absense of WP:SIGCOV shows almost the existing sources maybe PRs. Delete for now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to my check, I searched for reliable sources with in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources but found none. The article totally fails to meet WP:GNG. To establish notability, it requires multiple in-depth coverages from independent reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:52, 24 May 2024 (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!} 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracefs

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Only significant coverage (ie. not press release republication or forum post etc.) is a paper by the authors of the software. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-04/tracefs-file-system-trace-them-all Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 07:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, clearly fails WP:NSOFTWARE, as well as WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:48, 11 May 2024 (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 14:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software industry in Madurai

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

I don't see a reason why this article should exist -- none of the sources (that aren't broken) talk about the software industry in Madurai as a broader trend. This failed a PROD for being potentially notable, but absent any evidence to support that potential, I think this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth, significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (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 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources. 5 sources on the page and 3 of them have absolutely nothing on the subject and the other 2 about "Oracle planning to open a new center" and the other is about "building an IT park". No sources on the page have any coverage on the subject and does not warrant a page due to failure to pass WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to GNU nano. The sense of the discussion here is that there is insufficient sourcing to keep the article. While there was no clear distinction between deleting and redirecting, no argument was offer against a redirect, and policy favors it as an alternative to deletion. No prejudice to mentioning the subject at the target article, but i will leave that to those who edit in this area. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micro (text editor)

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

Besides one potentially WP:RS on the article, I wouldn't consider this article to pass WP:GNG. "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has decent coverage in Linux Magazine, ItsFoss, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and redirect there. I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet. Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that, rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what "notability" means here. A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing seems comparable to say Geany or Kate or Code::Blocks. Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS. Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source? MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case. In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here. Wqwt (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process. Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements. Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Linux Magazine link is the only applied or presented source which in my opinion passes RS (and it's not that great as direct detailing). The FOSS, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf are not reliable sources because they are providing software usage instructions, not a directly detailing product review or coverage of the product or producer. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Linux Magazine is the only source that is reliable enough to establish notability. There isn't anything outright wrong with the rest of the sources, but I can't come up with a compelling defense for why those sources are reliable enough to establish notability. This is a sourcing discussion, and this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards with respect to sourcing. I also couldn't find any sources not in the article that could establish notability, which is kind of shocking considering how many stars it has on GitHub. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to GNU nano per above, this doesn't seem like enough for a standalone article but certainly enough for a mention in the article about nano. jp×g 🗯️ 00:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Workday, Inc.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workday Adaptive Planning

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

Does not meet WP:CORP, at least in my opinion. There is no significant coverage from a reliable source, the Fortune article cited is simply a serialized list. A cursory Google search for alternative sources didn't turn up much, as they were acquired by Workday. TJS808 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Workday, Inc. All independent available coverage that I can find is in the vein of acquisitions and thus not qualifying under WP:ORGCRIT ([3], [4], [5]). Other available coverage appears to be sponcon or otherwise not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also second Dclemens1971's opinion to merge for the same reason. Annika59 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 6 May 2024 (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 00:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XXXDial

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few mentions anywhere; notability is not established. Joyous! Noise! 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very few mentions online and no coverage in reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HijackThis

AfDs for this article:

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Keep.

Previous discussions: 2006-11 (closed as ✓ Keep)

Related discussions: 2010-08 Merijn Bellekom (closed as redirect to HijackThis) ← 2006-12 Wssecure (closed as ✗ delete) ← 2005-07 Help2Go Detective (closed as MERGE and REDIRECT)

Logs: 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has had clear historical significance and has been site of lots of reviews (passes WP:NSOFT criterion 3): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Software with historical notability. Svartner (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (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 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Optimizer

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

Sources are all just database entries. No evidence of notability. Not eligible for proposed deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyfuca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find plenty of user-generated sources that discuss this malware, and the databases mentioned, but nothing secondary. It's obscure enough that those sources should be enough for anyone seeking information; we don't need a WP page. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing from reputable pubs. Existing coverages are standard database entries and, as highlighted above, user generated forum discussions. X (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was unable to find significant coverage; does not meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Defender

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only see how-to remove guides and forum posts on goods. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in any shape or form. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (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!} 23:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Shield

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2012-02 ✗ G10 ← 2011-01 ✗ A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it's been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only information found was user-generated content; other hits were irrelevant (e.g. Spectrum's security service, which goes by the same name). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seem to be some newer software packages that use this name, but there is nothing about this particular incarnation. I can't see anything we'd use, even what's now used for sourcing are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[1]^[2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, perhaps to connected car as an AtD. I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process. I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun. I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field. The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.
  The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."
  The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."
2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.
  The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."
3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.
  The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."
4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.
  The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.
  The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.
  "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.
  "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."
2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.
  The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: You said:

Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT

I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the insightful analysis, Teratix (talk · contribs)! As you've suggested, I've modified the lead to focus on on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2024 (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.

[1] Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[2] Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tracefs}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Software_industry_in_Madurai}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MailHippo}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micro_(text_editor)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Workday_Adaptive_Planning}}
@@ Line 32: / Line 31: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airbiquity}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seekda_(2nd_nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apache_Ambari}}