Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software

Points of interest related to Software on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Purge page cache

watch

GNU coding standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any independent, significant coverage of these standards; suggest a merge to GNU Project. The one book cited doesn't seem to mention these standards by name, so it seems the sentence they support are OR. Toadspike [Talk] 06:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Toadspike [Talk] 06:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gnits standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any independent coverage of these standards; suggest a merge or redirect to GNU Project (I would suggest GNU coding standards, but that doesn't seem notable either...) Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OTT Middleware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional, sparsely referenced, author refuses AFC review. What refs that do exist fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fairly sure the content issues are because the article was generated using an LLM. No comment on the rest yet, may evaluate later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes, GPTZero says 100% AI. I should have checked that first. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any significant coverage in a reliable source about the subject. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FusionReactor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

From my contested PROD: Fails WP:NSOFT: after searching GBooks, GScholar, and even the "ColdFusion Developer's Journal" on Internet Archive, there is just no independent coverage of this application beyond trivial mentions. None of the current sources in the article are reliable and independent.

I recently reverted edits made by a COI editor, which didn't contain any good sources either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, and Germany. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete have been thinking about sending this article to AfD for a while. I haven't been able to find any sources that would help it pass GNG. Even if independent RS coverage can be found, I'd argue for recreating as a redirect or perhaps selectively merging to a larger article to allow for better safeguarding; since it's creation by the company in 2009, it's only really been edited by a string of FusionReactor SPAs. Talkpage says it all, really. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free Document Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable per WP:ORG and an AI-generated WP:PROMO. As a draft, it was declined four times, rejected once, then moved to mainspace by creator. Cited sources are non-independent. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing although it is difficult to search due to its generic name. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Bangladesh. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

The article has been improved with inline citations, neutral tone, and independent references. Sources include KiteMetric, PRLog, Product Hunt, and SourceForge — all third-party domains with no ownership or connection to the subject.

1. "Free Document Maker – KiteMetric" – detailed coverage from a neutral tech blog. KiteMetric is an independent company with offices in Vietnam and the UK (see their contact page and corporate email). Retrieved 25 June 2025.

2. "Free Document Maker Emerges as Bangladesh’s Fastest-Growing AI Software Company" – PRLog. Retrieved 25 June 2025.

3. "Free Document Maker – Product Hunt". Retrieved 25 June 2025.

4. "Free Document Maker – SourceForge". Retrieved 25 June 2025.

The subject is verifiably notable under WP:ORG — publicly launched, reviewed externally, and cited. Prior draft rejections were fixed by improving tone, sourcing, and structure.

Requesting to retain article with room for further improvement, not deletion.

SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — SaddamHosenSaad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see the table below:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
KiteMetric		Blog
PRLog	By: Free Document Maker Software Company
Product Hunt		I don't see how this is reliable
SourceForge

As you can see, none of the cited sources show notability. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that editor is the creator of the software. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero coverage of any kind about the software; download links don't count towards notability. Social media posts are all that come up. Not much really that we can use for notability. Appears PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'm fairly sure Product Hunt is user-generated but either way the listing there has since been deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Encoded  Talk 💬 23:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable software platform. Zero WP:SIGCOV. The user is clearly spamming and self-promoting. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Security bug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Should be merged into Vulnerability (computer security). Seems to largely be a neologism fork without much content. guninvalid (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previously involved editor: @HourWatch guninvalid (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vulnerability (computer security). Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. guninvalid (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes this is a clear Merge. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PDCurses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem notable enough for its own article, BEFORE searches turned up only primary sources, such as the official PDCurses website and their Github. Could not find any secondary reliable sources ApexParagon (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge into Curses (programming library). Looking through Google I can find some third-party references to PDcurses, but only on Reddit threads and a handful of blog posts. Does seem like notability could be established if we were able to find any remotely reliable source, but very unlikely to be worth a full article. guninvalid (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability. The article seems an advertise. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very PROMO (with the large number of screenshots)... I've done a search, there is nothing about this "portal" (I'm not sure what it is) to be found Brief mention here [1] in a list of similar software. Gsearch brings up primary sources, then social media... Nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Agreed with User:Oaktree b in toto. Not only is this blatantly WP:PROMO, it's badly written promo without any attempt to hide that it's promo. Also seems to fail WP:NOTE even excluding the promo issues. The only sources I can find are two in the first several pages of results that aren't themselves clearly promotional in nature, and neither of those are particularly high quality, or aid in notability. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above. When I read this promo page aloud, I hear Charlie Brown's teacher speaking. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article seems to violate WP:NOTPROMO. Above comments and an inspection of the article indicates multiple issues: no references, not correctly structured, written like an advert. Unfortunately this article has no reasons for being kept. 11WB (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:AfD comment|1= Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concerns and will work to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s content and notability guidelines. The goal is to provide an informative, neutral, and well-sourced entry on openSIS. I’ll revise the content and add independent, reliable sources to address the issues raised.

Kindly allow me some time to make these changes. Appreciate your consideration. Sarika os4ed (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC) }}[reply]

If the article can be improved within the time this AfD is open, I would be happy to change my vote. I believe this article will be due for potential closure after July 2. 11WB (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [2][3] (Reuters), [4][5] (Bloomberg), [6][7][8][9](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Redstar0005: All of those are WP:CORPTRIV... 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices ... of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital'. So again, if you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Rich Smith. The articles from Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch provide non-trivial coverage by focusing specifically on Applied Intuition’s funding, valuation, business model, and industry role, not just standard notices or brief announcements. They include independent analysis and sustained attention, meeting WP:GNG and exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Again, I suggest the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TabPFN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:PROMO and contains likely AI-generated content (see, for example the bulleted lists of "features" and "limitations"). Several of the sources under "applications" are poorly cited research articles which I am not sure meet the criteria for inclusion and certainly don't meet the criteria for notability. Writing quality and encyclopedic tone throughout. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per WP:BEFORE#C, if the issues are content related (as tagged by nom prior to AfD) then the editor should be given some time to develop the article (post talk-page discussion) or article should be edited to fix those issues. If notability is a concern, is nom. saying per WP:DILIGENCE that no sources exist for this AfD (since otherwise AfD may not be the correct procedure)? In my search, I can see secondary sources exist in reliable venues that discuss this topic. WeWake (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy to help! However, the article is quite poor quality at the moment. It would require a substantial rewrite. I’m not an expert in the problem domain so not sure if it meets GNG. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Caleb Stanford, I have rewritten the article in the meantime. Please take a look if possible. — WeWake (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for redrafting. I will take a look. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeWake I checked the "The History, Evolution and Future of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)" source and it does not even mention TabPFN. Can you comment on what happened there?

  Do you have a connection to TabPFN? Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's unsourced, you're welcome to remove it. I addressed WP:PROSE issues and simply inlined the existing citations within the article. You're welcome to review the history; and I have no connection to the article other than what I am here for - to help create an encyclopedia. I am not sure what warrants this inquiry, but hopefully that helps. WeWake (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Nature article is referenced in the paper (number 42), however I agree that it's a statement that is more directed towards tabular foundation models in general instead of TabPFN specifically. AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: After normal editing, example sources that meet WP:GNG (also easily WP:NSOFTWARE): (a) ICLR Blogposts 2024 – peer-reviewed "post" with editorial oversight published by ICLR from a non-primary source; (b) Nature News&Views – published in the same venue, but a secondary commentary/coverage from a highly reputable source; (c) ~4k stars on GitHub; (d) Fortune (magazine) coverage (considered reliable) by staff AI editor; and (e) TabPFN v1 cited >400 times (meets criteria of significant impact I'd say), and many more. WeWake (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nature News&Views looks good. Not sure if ICLR Blogposts is really reliable? I don't think there is a consensus to monitor stars on GitHub for notability for software (see WP:Notability (software)) and, even if so, 4K is really not that many for this purpose. Fortune may be notable according to here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Caleb Stanford, the blog is peer-reviewed (double-blind) and also a poster actually (here) – without any evidence presented to the contrary, that seems reliable in this context. — WeWake (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say notability is there according to Wikipedia guidelines: sources 1, 2, 7 and 10 are discussing TabPFN in high detail, including a Nature publication, an ICLR conference paper and a Fortune article. In addition to this, sources 13 (IEEE Sensors Journal), 17 (Journal of Wetlands Research), 18 (NeurIPS), 20 (Digital Health), are research papers solely focused on TabPFN AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlessandrobonettoPL: Notability aside, I just checked all the sources in the "Performance" section and not a single one of them appears to support the claim that was stated in the article. Reference 7 that you mentioned, does not even mention TabPFN. Maybe these are from a previous draft of the article. The primary issue here in my view is quality and possible AI-generated content. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for your input but it seemed you were mostly concerned about notability and now that is not the issue anymore. The reference numbers were updated in the latest edit to the article. The Performance section has been reviewed by an external editor (@WeWake and can be easily revised if needed. Regarding AI-generated content, could you specify any particular sections you'd like to flag? These days, all content can be "possibly AI-generated", so if you have specific concerns we can address them. Also, Wikipedia is a place for every contributor to create the World's best source of information, so if you're not happy with the quality of a text, other than commenting on it you're more than welcome to edit the source and help us distribute this additional piece of knowledge to the world, especially given your valuable expertise in the subject matter :) AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sure, happy to help. No my concern is not with notability but rather with promotion and article quality, including the references. I’m concerned with how the article was developed given we ended up with a performance section where the citations provided don’t correspond to the claims. I can check the history for who added the section but if you have any ideas… thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for contributing to the article! So can you confirm now that the article meets the standards for Wikipedia? Any additional edits required? AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not yet. Can you please let me know what happened with the "Performance' section? How did it occur that none of the references provided support the information in the text? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, I didn't write that section so I can't say. I will revise it today so you can review it soon AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, I was reviewing the section and thought it would just be better to remove it entirely. Let me know what you think about it AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

nn software. Zero independent sources --Altenmann >talk 15:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fluentgrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a PUBLIC/WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. Current page is just a WP:SPAM, full of company products and services links WP:NOTADVERT. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (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) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. The article doesn't seem to have any problems. According to WP:SIRS, it is notable. Earth605 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up. The company has potentially hundreds of instances of coverage in reliable sources. This article does it no justice. FalconK (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am intrigued to hear why you think so? I didn't pull up anything good when I did my quick look so I am curious about your rationale. Moritoriko (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific source analysis would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FactoHR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A WP:SPA article about an HR platform. There had been an AFC rejection, draftification after an A7 tag, then it was moved to mainspace by the article creator, who subsequently removed Notability and Orphan tags placed by other editors. Products do not inherit notability from being in SAP and Azure marketplaces, and my searches are not finding better sources to demonstrate notability. There is no article on the vendor, Version Systems Private Limited, to provide a ATD target. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, and Gujarat. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: The article has been carefully written in a neutral tone with no promotional language. The content presents verifiable facts about factohr, based on reliable sources, in line with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Organization does not muster notability through WP:NCORP; circumstances of the article inclusion further support that it exists for promotional purposes rather than encyclopedic. WeWake (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d like to clarify that I’ve not included any promotional content in the article—only verifiable, neutral, and factual information. Additionally, I recently added an independent source to strengthen the article’s reliability and notability. The intention is to meet Wikipedia's content standards, not to promote. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also not finding any significant coverage. Article is weird given it talks about founding of the company but the article is about the product. Seems to be using wiki as a platform for promotion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I’d like to clarify that I’ve taken care to avoid any promotional language in the article. All the information included about factohr is factual and based on verifiable sources. The intent was to provide an accurate overview of the company and its product, not to promote it. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. While I am an HR student who just found to be interested in the hr tech domain and factoHR is one product in my city with whom I have no close connections. I thought this is a well known product and people concerned in the same domain should have information about this software while version systems is the company name, it is well known by its product factohr so there may not be much citations about version systems. And regarding independent citations I recently added one independent source mentioning factohr. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I understand the concerns, and I want to clarify that my intention in moving the article to mainspace and removing the tags was not to bypass editorial processes—I simply wasn’t fully aware of the proper procedure. I believed that addressing the issues mentioned (specifically by adding reliable sources) meant the tags could be removed. I'm here in good faith and open to following the correct steps to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to point out that Tracxn is a notable and independent source that provides verified business information. The profile on factohr includes revenue details and links to publicly available documents, which adds to the reliability of the information. Given Tracxn’s reputation for data-driven reporting on startups and private companies, I believe it qualifies as a dependable source supporting the article's content. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tracxn, a respected independent platform known for startup data analysis, provides a detailed profile on factohr, including revenue figures and references to publicly available corporate filings. This source supports the notability of the subject and meets the requirements of WP:RS. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Earlier issues such as lack of sources and notability tags were addressed in good faith. Independent sources have since been added. The removal of tags was done under the impression that once issues were fixed, removal was appropriate—this was not an attempt to bypass process. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Criteria for Notability (WP:NCORP). The company has received significant coverage in independent sources, and is listed on recognized marketplaces like SAP and Azure. While marketplace listings alone don't establish notability, their combination with third-party reporting strengthens the case. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Information in the article is backed by sources that provide specific data (e.g., financial performance, product reach, client base) and not just passing mentions. This demonstrates that the subject can be written about in an encyclopedic way. Rohanmehra13 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Rohanmehra13, I have struck through 4 of your 5 "keep" opinions above. You are welcome to add comments during this discussion (though please note WP:BLUDGEON), but each individual has only one keep/delete opinion. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment responding on the source mentioned above and the blog source added to the article: The Tracxn item mentioned is presumably this company profile; I'd see that as a simple listing, falling under WP:CORPTRIV. The SAG Infotech Blog item is an unevaluated listing on a product category list (on a site with sales popups) - again, that falls under WP:CORPTRIV. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Remember, one "vote" per editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only sources I can find are sales-related listings (some attempting to disguise as magazine articles). Lamona (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources, aside from an entry in a listicle that reads both promotionally and as LLM-generated. Toadspike [Talk] 05:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Slight merge to open source is possible, but this page should not remain as-is due to a general lack of any notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Searching in Google Books, and reviewing past discussions, it seems there is some coverage in reliable sources ([10][11][12]), but all of it seems to be passing mentions. I would favor a redirect/merge to Open-source license or any other appropriate target. MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there are some notable mentions and I believe the topic meets WP:GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]