Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

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.

Idio (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 meet the required depth for WP:NCORP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Microsoft Operations Framework (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 )

No footnotes, just one interwiki. Nothing in the article suggests it meets WP:GNG or W:NSOFT. BEFORE gives mostly mentions in passing that fail WP:SIGCOV, although there's one "pocket" guide book about it: [1]. I don't think that's enough for GNG, but it's worth discussing here - maybe someone can find more sources, or thinks what is visible in GS is enough? (Mind you, I don't). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Smerge to ITIL. Save for this one dedicated article in The Sydney Morning Herald, I could not find much coverage outside of mentions, but of the mentions they all bring up MOF being a clone of ITIL. I think there's room in that article for a few sentences bringing up MOF (and other company-specific ITIL extensions). DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

XBRL International (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 )

Last AfD was in 2008 and we are now much stricter on notability. Fails WP:ORG. Entirely based on its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep: Well, XBRL for Dummies [2] neatly sums it up in a chart, and [3] and [4], probably enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I wouldn't regard this as SIGCOV. 3 small mentions in a 200+ page book. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  From this page 207 has 2 sentences devoted to XBRL International and not SIGCOV in a book 360+ pages. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep: XBRL is apparently popular enough for authors and researchers to have analyzed the backing organization. See e.g. [5], [6] in addition to Oaktree b's sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  [7] does not even refer to XBRL International. XBRL is undoubtedly notable but this organization? LibStar (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  A full-access version of that source is here: [8]. Here is an example paragraph (I removed the middle half of the paragraph but the entire paragraph is about the organization):

  The standards organization, XBRL International, is a not-for-profit consortium of approximately 300 members that develops and approves the XBRL specification (see the organization chart in Figure 1). ...... Although the XBRL standards organization is business-led, it includes regulators as members. The standards organization deals with widely varying and conflicting interests among the different groups of organizations as well as disparate rules and regulations across various jurisdictions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep - Only self published sources, which can of course be cleaned up thanks to the availiblity of third party sources. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

MarketStar (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 )

Article used mainly self-published sources, such as their own website and Press releases. It also sounds promotional. I was unable to find additional reliable coverage on them. Sandycubs (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandycubs (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Utah. Wikishovel (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: I've heard of this company, they've been around for decades. The problem is trying to find sources about them... [9] or [10] are typical. The company is mentioned when someone changes jobs, or they're hiring for a certain role. I don't see anything in Gscholar about the company. Sourcing now in the article is primary, social media, a trademark application... We don't quite have enough. Happy to revisit if others can pull up sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Someone associated with the company said not very pleasant things [11], which really doesn't help notability. There isn't much in Gnews beside them opening an office in Ireland either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY (Companies) and WP:NPOV relies heavily on primary and promotional sources, lacks significant independent coverage. Thilio ^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 20:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• removed all self published sources, under operations, awards and Philanthropy, the page is not promotional with primary and self published sources now. We should keep. Dhiraj1984 (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and promoted content. The incident that Oaktree b notes above got a little local coverage [12], but that hardly makes a company notable enough for an article. Wikishovel (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral - I just want to say that using Newspapers.com, there are numerous articles or interviews with executives that have appeared over the years in the Weber State University student newspaper (The Signpost), which seems to be professional-enough journalism. Those saying "can't find sources" may not have access to a platform like Newspapers. I'd say don't be too hasty to delete -- it's a substantial company. - Screwdryver (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC) — Screwdryver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

PreonVM (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 believe that this page does not meet the Wikipedia Notability guidelines, as it has no citations (until I added one), there is little public information about it, and PreonVM appears to be no longer used or maintained. I don't which category to put this under, I'm new to Wikipedia sorry. Cousdev (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥ talk 13:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete found mentions at [13] and [14] but I don't see WP:SIGCOV. lp0 on fire () 14:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak delete - an attempt has been made to save this. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Free statistical software (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 )

This article is not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, and should instead be moved to another wiki. BlockArranger (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete or Redirect to List of statistical software . I can find very little about this topic other than software comparisons or discussion about generic free software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I have never attempted that before, but is there any easy way to hand over the material to Wikibooks, in case they find it useful? Otherwise, it may be difficult to dig up after deletion. BlockArranger (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete as per nom, this certainly falls under what Wikipedia is not. This is an essay on statistical software, not an encyclopedia article.

Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete: This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

LAVIS (software) (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 --Altenmann >talk 19:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Japan. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

SORCER (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 )

Flagged as failing WP:GNG, WP:OR, and being too technical since December 2013, it is time to bring this forward for discussion again. I am making a neutral nomination on that basis. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete for reasons cited in the nomination. Reads like technical documentation, and way too many issues left dangling for way too long. End it already. Dharmabumstead (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: I am moving my position from my neutral nomination to offering an opinion for deletion. The rationale is the same as the nomination, but I have taken a firmer view. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ubiquity (Firefox) (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 )

This Firefox extension fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Article has been tagged as needing updates since 2011 and the extension itself has been deprecated for years. Sourcing is very weak and all coverage I could find is either routine or from unreliable sources such as blogs or usergroups. MidnightMayhem (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: I can only find github items for replacement software or "new version". Sourcing now in the article is blogs or primary items. Nothing that I see for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Found various sources, many of which are informal (blogs, etc.), but there is:
  • this piece in Medium ("Will Ubiquity for Firefox change the way we use the web?") from 2008 but as a blog service Medium's reliability is questionable.
  • There is a lengthy article in Wired, ("Ubiquity Add-on for Firefox Gets an Update, New Interface") also from 2008.
  • Wired update from 2009.
  • There is an article in InformationWeek (InformationWeek. 2009. "Mozilla Updates Firefox Tool Ubiquity; Version 1.5. Includes Command Memory and Command Matching That Functions Similarly to the Firefox 3 ‘Awesome Bar.’" January 15. EBSCOhost) but that I can't access.
  • There's a short (3-4 paragraphs) one from The Telegraph ("Ubiquity: the Firefox 3 add-on you have to see." Telegraph Online, 27 Aug. 2008.)
  • "Mozilla Announces Ubiquity for Universal Access" By: Don Reisinger In: Mashable.com, August 26, 2008
  • "Mozilla Introduces Language-Based Add On Ubiquity" PC Magazine 2008 (can't access) etc. I think this shows that there was considerable interest at the time. Someone with better access to EBSCO might find more. Lamona (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no consensus has formed yet and discussion of the sources provided by @Lamona would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep: — Maile (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. There's sufficient sourcing about Ubiquity specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep - As per @Lamona, this extension has been mentioned on several outlets and seems to have been developed by Mozilla themselves. By the looks of it, the extension has been abandoned since 2011, so perhaps we could just update the article and untag it as needing update. Oakchris1955 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

G-Portugol (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 yet notable per WP:Product or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only routine academic coverage, and nothing in GBooks. The Manzano book cited is an 80-page self-published reference, with the shown ISBN not found in searches of Karlsruhe or Worldcat. The project itself was moribund in 2010, then nine minor commits were made to master between this month and last. The merge proposal to a non-existent article looks like it's about to be procedurally closed shortly. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Portugal. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I believe that Portugal was tagged incorrectly. The name Portugol is a combination of three words: Portuguese, Algol, and Pascal — (PORTUguese, ALGOL, and PascaL). Algol and Pascal are programming languages. G-Portugol was created by a Brazilian. Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There are two books in Portuguese:

- Algoritmos - Lógica para Desenvolvimento de Programação Imperativa de Computadores

- G-Portugol Programação de Computadores em Português

The project is being maintained in Debian. It is included in all the latest stable versions of Debian. It is a stable project, which is why it has few changes. Recently, the "gportugol" GitHub repository was created to host the contributions that were previously only available in Debian, as well as to welcome new contributors.

An article about it has existed on the Portuguese Wikipedia since 2007. Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What is the publisher of those books? The listings do not give obvious information. -- Recon rabbit 17:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

- Algoritmos - Lógica para Desenvolvimento de Programação Imperativa de Computadores

Publisher: LTC

Publication Date: April 8, 2025

Edition: 30th

Language: Portuguese

Number of Pages: 424 pages

ISBN-10: 6558110075

ISBN-13: 978-6558110071

- G-Portugol Programação de Computadores em Português

Publisher: Propes Vivens

Publication Date: 2017

Edition: 1st

Language: Portuguese

Number of Pages: 80

ISBN: 978-85-916492-9-7 Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The publisher of the first book listed is LTC, which appears to be a well-established publishing house in Brazil. The book is about algorithms for imperative programming, not about G-Portugol, but its description on Amazon, roughly translated, says: "The appendices present the resolution of some fixation exercises and examples of coding written programs interpreters of algorithmic languages, such as VisuAlg, Portugol Studio, Portugol Online, G-Portugol and ILA".

Propes Vivens, publisher of the second book listed, is Prof. Manzano's own self-publishing imprint. Wikishovel (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 20:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nacsport Video Analysis Software (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 )

This does not even come close to meet WP:GNG. promotional edits by COI editor. Majority of links point towards mentions of the software. Previously deleted and recreated. Equine-man (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: The only significant coverage of the software not from the company itself is from La Provincia. I don't see mentions of it being used by various leagues as evidence of notability. -- Recon rabbit 20:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Do Not Delete: Hi, I'm the original author of this article and it already went through this process several years ago. I originally wrote the article about the company Nacsport. It was decided by the Wikipedia community that the "company" Nacsport was not notable. That is why it was deleted previously. I then worked with the community to get the article to a point where it was acceptable, the first change being to move the focus from Nacsport being a company to it being a piece of software. It was decided by the community that as a piece of software, the article was acceptable and it passed notability after considering the size of the soccer clubs Nacsport worked with.
• Regarding the COI mentioned above - at the time of writing, there was no COI. I wrote the article because I wanted to learn a new skill. Nacsport was one of the few international companies operating where I live in the Canary Islands. I chose to write about precisely because, in my opinion, it IS a notable company. Subsequently, after managing to get the article published, they offered me a job. So, I accept that NOW there is a COI, but before, there wasn't. Because of this, I have not edited the article since I got the job. The only thing I changed yesterday was the most current software version, which I didn't think would be a problem -- DuncRitchie

• I have reread this five times over and I really have no idea what you expect anyone here to do with this information. The very first sentence of the AfD rationale is "This does not even come close to meet [sic] WP: GNG" and not a single sentence of this two paragraph rant addresses the lack of proper sources, which is the fundamental issue with the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep. I believe there are reliable sources covering this topic. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Integrated Publishing System (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 )

lack of notability and reliable external sources Gdarin (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• merge into Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Not notable by itself. Mag2k (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Software. jolielover♥ talk 16:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Merge with Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania : only notable as a product of the named organization, as described in this 1984 article from Awake! . -- Recon rabbit 19:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I've updated the article with important sources. Furthermore, there are significant studies that indicate that the work of computer scientists at IBM at that time laid the foundation for the development of the XML markup system in subsequent years. A description of the history of Britannica's publishing allows us to understand how it evolved. The article presents important facts from the history of the two largest publishers of the time (WT, IBM) and the history of Encyclopædia Britannica, the first general encyclopedia available in electronic form. Keep --Wiklol (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Moreover, writing about the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica (McHenry) or questioning the credibility of his account, published on the professionally maintained website of the general counsel of the Encyclopedia's publisher, is truly bizarre. Will we also consider IBM's software lists unreliable? Will we consider the information about several over 400-page manuals for this system, or the exorbitant prices for this software, to be fabricated? --Wiklol (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't doubt that these writings aren't credible, I just don't see why the fact that the software was used to create something notable makes the software notable. -- Recon rabbit 17:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Merge with Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society per above. Being a product of a notable company also doesn't make something notable. Notability is not inherited. CabinetCavers (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Merge. There's no independent coverage of the software, though it's an interesting footnote to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and can be briefly noted at that article. I also did a search under the software's other name, "Multilanguage Electronic Phototypesetting System" (MEPS). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

McHenry, editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1992-1997), was neither an employee nor a collaborator with WTS. The appendices to his 1998 book "How to Know" are the main source of this software's importance in publishing. At WTS, tasks performed for several years with the assistance of IPS were quickly and probably entirely taken over by MEPS. --Wiklol (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

However, McHenry is writing as a user of the IPS, and is thus not independent of the topic of this article, which is not the WTS article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Lovable (company) (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:NORG at present. Amigao (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep. Passes WP:ORG/WP:GNG. See following news pieces: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Also already getting mentioned in scholarly works even though it is a young company (granted passing mentions): [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥ talk 05:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment Just to say that a previous article on this subject, albeit at a slightly different title, was deleted only a few weeks ago, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovable. Speaking of different titles, whether due to intentional titlegaming or not, this has gone round the houses: in addition to the current title and Lovable, there has been content at Lovable Labs, Draft:Lovable Labs Inc., Lovable (platform), and possibly elsewhere. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete per nom and previous AfD discussion aesurias (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete Not sure why this was recreated after a recent deletion. Existing coverage is largely routine business coverage + non-independent quoting of CEO/other tech executives. Beyond the Forbes article I don't think the sources provided by 4meter4 meet requirements for WP:NORG and even the forbes article quotes heavily from an interview with the CEO.

• TechCrunch Not independent as it is is largely quotes from the CEO/other tech people without little to no independent analysis.
• BusinessInsider Not entirely independent as it relies overmuch on quotes from CEO, though there is some added thought about traffic to the app.
• bdtechtalks Is a blog post and not great for reliability/verifying independence.
• Bloomberg Paywalled, but the opening lines make it clear they're using quotes from the CEO from an appearance on Bloomberg TV so not promising.
• euronews Mostly quotes company numbers + talks about routine business (funding rounds). No independent analysis.
• thenextweb Routine coverage of business growth with many quotes from CEO and not necessarily independent. Uncertain whether thenextweb is considered reliable either.
• Techcrunch 2 Only a passing mention as the article focuses on a different company (Anything)

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All the links had pipes preventing them from working; I've removed those. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There's transformative text and secondary analysis in many of these. It's not all interviews, so I disagree with your source assessment as entirely failing WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep - Very known vibe coding company (need more sources). Ovedc (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more neutral assessment of sources provided and editor acknowledgement that a previous AFD was about a different subject with a similar name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep I find Euronews like [30], Bloomberg and other links good for WP:NCORP. While the previous deletion resulted into delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lovable_(company) I still think there is a chance to grab more clear keep reasons.--Imtisig (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete - There was a clear consensus in the previous deletion discussion and I don't believe that overturning a rough consensus is a good idea. My personal stance on the issue is that this is a pretty minor vibe-coding company and most of the sources are non-independent or quote directly from the CEO Oakchris1955 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep: I agree with the source analysis by Anonrfjwhuikdzz, but besides the above Forbes article [31], there is an article that details a security controversy: [32]. This should be just enough to meet WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep: due to tax controversy TGCP (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'm borderline about the security stuff but I don't see the tax issue meeting ORGCRIT. It seems very routine and not very secondary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment: The title should be moved to Lovable assuming the article is kept. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

CDC MarketFirst (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 )

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment.@Amigao: MarketFirst is a software not a company. It's one of many software programs made by the CDC Software Corporation. WP:NORG only somewhat applies via WP:PRODUCT; but as we don't have an article on the company its not all that relevant to this discussion. WP:GNG is the standard for software programs. Note that many sources do not include CDC when referring to this program and just call it MarketFirst. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment. Here are a couple of book sources: [33], [34]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep - Don't really see a valid reason to delete. Category:Marketing software indicates that articles on software are acceptable on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep - This is software seems has been through a few ownership changes from when it was a standalone company and clearly has been just a software package for the last 20 years. I recently updated the article to remove a lot of promotional material and clean it up. It appears mostly defunct, but seems to still be supported as legacy software package by its owner. Given the number of references, I believe it meets notability, if only from a historic perspective. Sargdub (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Comment Interesting. If it were solely for that reason, I would be in favor of attempting to keep the article. User:Deathnotekll2 User:Deathnotekll2 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. However, at it's currently written the article is unacceptable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. The software also contains many unsupported claims to its successes that can't be completely verified by the sources it relies upon. Many of the links are broken or inaccessible - such as those from Reuters and Business Wire - rendering any dedicated verification difficult. It appears the software did exist and was successful, but the article would need to be written again (especially to obtain new versions of its sources). User:Deathnotekll2

• Delete - Reads like an advertisement or resume; fails WP:NOTPROMO. Kyunde (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source assessment would be helpful here as we have very different opinions of the sources that exist in the article or provided in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep - Plenty of reliable third party sources. Recommend to move to MarketFirst, drop "CDC". audiodude (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete - Per WP:NORG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete: Here's my assessment of the sources in the article and those presented here. I didn't find any that were both accessible and provided independent coverage of the software. -- Recon rabbit 19:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Weak keep: My recommendation is to come to the realization that this is a former software platform that doesn't seem to exist any more. Therefore, remove any trace of promotional tone or linkage, truncate the article, put the verbs in the past tense, and let it exist as a memo for posterity. The software pretty clearly had a significant role at a time more than a decade ago; it's just not a relevant topic in today's business landscape. That's what Wikipedia is for... helping us remember the SuperCalcs of yore. - Screwdryver (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC) — Screwdryver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: I have looked in various locations and have found little besides routine business coverage. The sources mentioned by 4meter4 are just brief list entries. If we're being generous, maybe this source could count towards WP:NPROD, but it's still just a single source; there are no sources that clearly have in-depth coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

IZ3D (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 )

The article fails to demonstrate significant independent coverage per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most references are bare URLs or press releases, and there is limited evidence of enduring notability beyond product announcements. The company was a short-lived 3D display manufacturer defunct since 2012, with minimal lasting impact on the field. SanneMonte (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 1. —^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep It appears that iZ3D received a good amount of attention when its screen was first released given its novelty. Even if it didn't catch on, I think the notability of the unique product stands and this article definitely doesn't suffer from the self-promotion of many org/corp articles. Additional reliable/in depth sources reviewing the product: Gizmodo, PCMag, TechCrunch. There is also a possibility of merging into an article that discusses 3D monitors as an alt to deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete Based mostly on iZ3D Website. Ovedc (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment: The iZ3D monitor is notable, but the company is not. This article is about the company, but maybe it can be rewritten to focus on the monitor. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Interoperable Object Reference (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2025)

• Wikipedia deletion sorting
• WikiProject Software