Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Software. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Software

SMW+

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

Dubious notability. I spotchecked several of the sources and most are not independent, dead, or do not discuss this specific software package (as opposed to Semantic MediaWiki which is clearly notable) in sufficient depth to qualify as significant coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LineLab

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

Relatively new product where the only sources about its uses are by the original creators; some third party sources are not relevant as they do not discuss the software. Page was previously tagged by @Chaotic Enby and Jlwoodwa: for promotional tone and other issues. Tags were removed without a significant change in tone, and without adding sources to demonstrate notability. I find nothing in Google search except the company itself, so it is time for an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GBT Technologies

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

Non-notable company. "None of the sources is independent and secondary, and none of them does anything to show how the company is notable." So wrote Bonadea in January '23 here (limited visibility, so I've reproduced it here), about an earlier version that had a greater number of equally feeble references. The comment still applies. Googling brings many hits, but those that aren't mere mentions all seem to be mere PR puffs from GBT Technologies itself. Hoary (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I find about the company are stock/investment reports (including recent ones foretelling bankruptcy of the company, but not giving much info beyond that). Of the sources in the article, the ones about the company were written by the CTO and CEO. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found that would contribute to notability, for search strings "gbt technologies", "genesis blockchain technologies", and "gopher protocol inc". Plenty of routine business announcements, legal disclosures, and press releases, but no $IS \cap RS \cap SIGCOV$ . Folly Mox (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, are we communicating via math now? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contao

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

All sources appear to be first-party - this looks like it could be self-promotional and non-notable to me. It seems to be German-origin software, and I tried looking at the Deutsch Wiki version of the article to see if it was any better, but it seems to be in roughly the same state. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the deletion. Contao is an OpenSource CMS like WordPress, Joomla or Typo3.

What would it take to keep the article online?

Here, for example, is an article about Contao:

https://phpconference.com/blog/the-wonderful-world-of-contao/

or here are some statistics from buildwith

https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/Contao 2001:A61:5018:4B01:D4E2:6152:5CC6:5C09 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Hornpipe2 [1] by Pearson, source #7, and the PHPConference source linked above appear to be secondary. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ntractive

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

No establishment of notability Amigao (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page had been overwritten by an IP contributor to talk about an entirely different company. I have since reverted all edits since that point. @Amigao, not sure if you want to take a look at the restored article for whether that meets notability standards or not. Ham tech person 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even before the hijacking, most sources are press releases. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:

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

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 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!} 05:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingo Root

AfDs for this article:

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

Same as previous AfD (Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ as nominator. Additionally, KingRoot and Kingo Root may be different. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote", this could be seen as a duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option. To the nominator, your nomination is seen as your vote, please do not vote additional times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CNET from 2016 and DigitalTrends are reliable according to RSP. 1/4 of the content is devoted to the malware suspicions so I don't see how it's writen like an ad, nor is "possibly malware" a valid deletion rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBhasha

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: I found a full article from the Independent. However, that's just one. The article cites a reviewed paper by the authors of the program; I don't think that (or Wikimedia Diff) counts. There are quite a bit of trivial mentions in other papers. Meanwhile, The Hindu and Time of India each devote a paragraph. I feel like there's marginal notability here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are paragraphs in several books: [2] [3]. There's also this Taylor & Francis encyclopedia that cites it, but I can't find the relevant content that cites it anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 31 July 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) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find more sources than the Independent above published in 2010. Searching for its former name "wikiBabel" brings mostly pages linked to Microsoft that are currently deleted. Its web doesn't really function, etc. ---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the paragraphs above? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]