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

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!} 08:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldor

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

Only primary sources exist, which is not sufficient. Notability contested for a long time with no sign of notability likely to appear for defunct research project Ysangkok (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE style search for "Aldor" programming showed a number of books that have sections describing Aldor; I added three of them as general references to the article. GScholar, with hundreds of hits, shows that there are likely more independent sources. Given these, there are enough in depth, independent RS that this topic passes WP:GNG. Using these sources, a reasonable article could be developed. Hence keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and improve. The page doesn't look encyclopedic and the sources are not so clear. I suggest to draftify the article and then add more sources and rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic format and then subit for review. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs development but that is unlikely to happen in draft space. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Mark Viking. ~Kvng (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the newly added references would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark Viking. Just running through the three sources added to the article: [1] is a paper published in academic conference proceedings containing 9 lines (> 100 words) about the language as such and another 9 lines (> 100 words) about the Aldor compiler. [2] is a dedicated paper of several thousand words with extensive detail on Aldor by Erik Poll and Simon Thompson; [3] is another such paper by Thompson. (AFAICT authors Poll and Thompson, although they have both written extensively on Aldor, are not in any meaningful sense affiliated with it; here is a presentation by Poll explaining Aldor's history.) I think we're comfortably in GNG territory here; and if not, there's a lot more where these came from. -- Visviva (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2023 (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!} 08:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoner

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only refs are WP:PRIMARY. Does not seem to meet notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May need a bit of copy editing. Quick WP:BEFORE shows it seems to pass GNG. Evaluation in journals [4][5]. Some inclusion on lists [6] [7]. Very likely more in German language. —siro χかいo 10:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. No sign of WP:BEFORE. More than 2 words in the nom. statement could help direct editors evaluating these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current sources on the page do not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetimememorial I've added the 4 references I found above to the article —siro χかいo 20:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the academic references are okay for barely meeting WP:GNG; neither was cited much. The lists seem irrelevant to me. Suriname0 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking delete per Siroxo. - Indefensible (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2023 (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 and no indication further input or source analysis is forthcoming Star Mississippi 12:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HCL Sametime

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets GNG Wiley book, Taylor & Francis text, Wiley "for Dummies" book —siro χかいo 07:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. Meets WP:GNG. 2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Siroxo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:19, 15 July 2023 (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!} 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basware

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Finland. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2023 (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 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have ample coverage in Finnish. For example here is an Aamulehti article about the company's restructuring. On the English side of things, here is a book on back-office automation from a reputable publisher that provides nontrivial coverage of various Basware products. These sources and others seem ample to meet WP:CORPDEPTH's expectation that sources will make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.-- Visviva (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Visviva's good work. We need reliable articles about mid-sized companies like this.
A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single reference isn't ample coverage. That is you mistaking PR and paid coverage for valid coverage that doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The Finnish source comes from an interview and a press-release and the book while admittedly a secondary source is content that comes directly from the company website and is not that independent. scope_creep^Talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the limited preview to the Aamulehti piece, I'd be inclined to agree with Scope_creep, or at least discount it heavily. With the first sentence starting with Basware says it will.., it has all the hallmarks of a journalist taking a press release and rephrasing it.
I've tried to look for better sourcing in Finnish language newspapers, but it's a pretty rough going. There's tons of hits, but almost all of it is things like this where the company is mentioned briefly, or things like this which are obviously based solely on a company press release.
I didn't look at every hit, but the ones that struck out as different are these two news stories (both paywalled, unfortunately), which are 408 and 456 words about an information security problem in a Basware product and a whistleblower coming out with details about the problem. The pieces involve commentary by entities like FICORA's National Cyber Security Center and Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority .
I don't feel quite comfortable enough with WP:NCORP to straight-up !vote here, but I think this is borderline at best. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I translated a whole bunch of Finish articles that mentioned the company as part of the WP:BEFORE, and there was nothing of depth. There is a big PR and corporate social media presence because it is a software company. It needs to do that to survive, but there is little outside that domain. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I guess I'll mark myself down as a weak delete for now: if the two Helsingin Sanomat pieces about a single infosec issue are the best there is, it's not a lot. Ljleppan (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but I'm not seeing a consensus here. Perhaps another week will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva. Okoslavia (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references:

Ref 1 [8] Company site. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
Ref 2 [9] Annual report. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
Ref 3 [10] Paywalled. Basware makes a profit every year.
Ref 4 404'd
Ref 5 404'd
Ref 6 404'd
Ref 7 404'd
Ref 8 Paywalled. The trans-title tag states "Basware made acquisitions in Germany worth more than 12 million euros" That is routine coverage, covered by WP:CORPDEPTH. It fails that policy.
Ref 9 404'd
Ref 10 [11] Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 11 [12] States its a press-release Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 12 [13] Basware tribunal Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

I don't have any faith that the first paywalled reference in any good when compared to the quality of the other references. It currently an advert and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4-7 and 9 are all from the company's own website. Tivi, the publication of ref #8 is at best a mixed bag (to the point that while I have access to almost every newspaper in Finland through work, we don't seem to have bothered to subscribe to it), and absent evidence to the contrary I'd presume the story it fails CORPDEPTH. Ljleppan (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2023 (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. ✗plicit 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xconfig

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

Fails RS, N (NSOFT), V. Not a notable element of the Linux kernel. It has existed since 2005, and has had a sourcing issue since 2009. No reliable significant sources have been found in 18 years, and I doubt any will turn up soon. Some sources do exist that mention xconfig, but it is a passing mention that confirm it exists (EXIST), and it is certainly not the focus of them. WhoAteMyButter (🌴_talk│☀️^contribs) 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WhoAteMyButter (🌴_talk│☀️^contribs) 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we're gonna have an article for every config and makefile in the Linux kernel, we'll be here for a long time. Considering that even .bashrc, init.el, and .vimrc don't have their own own articles despite being some of the most edited config files in Linux is telling. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:07, 29 June 2023 (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 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mailtraq

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

Fails the GNG. My WP:BEFORE search did not find evidence that this software has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. (Previously deleted via PROD in 2007.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article seems promotional, no references to support notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, promotional, and lacking sufficient media coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 18:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I haven't found anything promotional in particular (and this is not a criteria of notability per se), the article doesn't show any sources, which makes it a good candidate for deletion for failing GNG.Onetimememorial (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2023 (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 Sigma AB#Sigma Software. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business, funding news, profiles and PR. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 20:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Sweden, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For starters the original author has admitted to WP:PAID and is now banned for advertising so this article is already off to a bad start. Not to mention this article has been deleted before already. The social impact section doesn't exactly help WP:CORPDEPTH and seems to be of a promotional thing. For the remaining relevant part, I see two references are just interviews with the CEO and nothing else so we cannot use them per WP:ORGIND. The other references are just short mentions of the company. - Imcdc Contact 05:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mostly due to the war in Ukraine there is now SIRS-coverage of the company in major Swedish news outlets. Unfortunately, I really can't spare the time to fix the article rn. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post some article links if you have time User:Draken Bowser? I can try updating the article with sources. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a revisit I'm not sure it's at GNG-levels, there ain't much on the early history of the company, but there sure is a lot of coverage: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]/[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. You'll probably need sv:Mediearkivet-access if you haven't got it already. The articles are mostly paywalled. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Might be an issue if they are paywalled but I will review. - Indefensible (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably enough to keep it, but at minimum can be merged with its parent Sigma AB if not. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Taking into account this article's history, User:scope_creep's knowledge and expertise with WP:NCORP and my own reading of the article, my inkling is this company is not notable. Acknowledge, there's plenty of references added, unfortunately unable to see many of them in detail. Opposed to keep, but there is a case for merging to the parent company Sigma AB, especially if Sigma Software is now a wholly owned or near 100% subsidiary (looks like it but haven't been able to categorically determine). Rupples (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma AB owns 60% of Sigma Software from what I could find. - Indefensible (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks to be the case from the company's website. Didn't find the info. yesterday but did today by searching with a more specific query. Don't think the company meets NCORP on its own, but as you say, a merge to Sigma AB might be a valid alternative. The amount of content merged would have to be significantly trimmed to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight. Not altogether convinced a merge is appropriate that's why I'm not formally recommending. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator editor has been blocked as a UPE for covert advertising. I see a whole load of their previous articles have been deleted and more will be. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect TNT this, I'll add a sentence or two at Sigma AB pending expansion. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deed is done, I think we can redirect now. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sigma AB#Sigma Software as its parent and the way the two are branded. Not ideal as its only 60% owned, but a reasonable outcome. Rupples (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sigma AB per above. There is probably a bit more which could be transferred over in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. User:Draken Bowser has pretty much got this spot on by only including in Sigma AB non-promotional content from reliable, independent sources. If promotional content is added from the Social impact section of this article, the Sigma AB article starts to look like a proxy for this one. Rupples (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it does not mention the early history of the founding of Sigma Software in 2002. If this article is combined with the parent then it should cover more details like that. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma Software as a brand was launched in 2014. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to a company than its brand name. Right now the parent article covers the acquisition in 2006, the renaming in 2014, and recent activities because of the war. But not the founding. Why? That does not seem consistent. If this article is merged or redirected there, we are going to lose some content. - Indefensible (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the article subject is Sigma AB it kind of makes sense to include any information on Eclipse as a subsidiary, but I'm not sure it makes sense to relate the independent company's early history. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does and would cost very little in my opinion. Sigma AB only has 60% of Sigma Software based on the source that we have, that is enough for majority control but still leaves a good portion in outside control. If we remove this article then we should include some more in that article, it would not be promotional and is just giving more information. - Indefensible (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sigma AB#Sigma Software as ATD, topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 12 July 2023 (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!} 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yattee

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

Similar to Invidious but with less referencing support. This article seems to be for promotion and only has primary sources; the only non-primary reference does not mention the subject. Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any in-depth coverage in independent sources, even unreliable ones. No evidence of genuine notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (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!} 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LakeFS

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

Non-notable software, with only venture capital funding PR pieces used for sourcing. Nothing else found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an open-source software, not commercial, that is widely used in ML/AI applications. As a regular user of this software, I noticed that there was no article about this topic, so I started one. I was unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, so I wrote something that is certainly unacceptable. I am trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and intend to improve it so that it reads as an objective article. There are multiple in-depth references about this topic in academia, most of which are available on Google Scholar (Link). Anah509 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. In addition to the books links above (I didn't check them), I found more media coverage articles that are quite easily found in English:

This is an Israeli company and the sources are from Israeli well-established media press. I also saw sources in media in Hebrew but I couldn't assess them properly as I don't know the language. However, even these sources should be sufficient for the article's improvement.--Onetimememorial (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can use cleanup, but definitely not commercial. According to WP:JUSTASTUB, just because the article is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Nanosci (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nanosci. Meets WP:GNG. Additional sources found: coverage in books ([26], [27], [28]) in newspapers/magazines ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). 2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from some editors with experience with AFD discussions and source evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable based on the sources listed above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After blowing away the chaff I don't think we have quite enough to work with here. Policy-based rationale follows.
First, the rules: WP:PRODUCT states that A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. WP:CORPDEPTH provides that significant coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. WP:COMMERCIAL reminds us why we have these rules: Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Putting this in my own words, I'd say what we need is sufficient sourcing to provide coverage that is robust against promotional abuse.
Next, the sources. There are a lot of misleading search hits for this term. In addition to the predictable scannos, a non-commercial file system by the same name was announced to the world in a 2008 paper by a Korean team (which had some initial scholarly followup but seems to have fizzled). But that seems to be unrelated to the 2020 Treeverse project that is the subject of this article. After blowing off the chaff, I am left with two sets of sources: the coverage of Treeverse's VC funding in the commercial press (representatively linked by others above), and nontrivial coverage in a couple of recent O'Reilly Media software books, e.g. extensive in-depth discussion in this Kubernetes book (some outside preview), bulleted para of about 40 words here. The Treeverse VC funding articles often also have quite a bit about LakeFS, but in context that information seems unlikely to represent independent reporting.
This is a tough one IMO. LakeFS is definitely a real thing that people are using and talking about, and the company has gotten some legitimate coverage of its own. But I don't think we have enough on the company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, or enough sustained in-depth coverage of the product to meet WP:PRODUCT. Nor am I really convinced that we have the kind of robust sourcing necessary to avoid promotional abuse. Ideally I'd like to follow the example of the second O'Reilly book and merge this into some bulleted list of data lake management software, but I'm not seeing any viable currently-existing merge targets. -- Visviva (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do count independent hebrew sources (news portals, newspapers) as RS. It is not compulsory for the sources to be in English for notability. Okoslavia (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (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!} 07:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magical (company)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG - and WP:SERIESA to boot - routine/incidental coverage presented for this browser extension startup. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has enough weighty and relevant sources to be retained.--DH22 Mim (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per media coverage in TechCrunch, LifeHacker Australia, Android Police, Mashable, Business Insider... It appears this broad coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates browser extension notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, "media coverage" includes PR, announcements, interviews, etc and is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are either not about the company but about a product (which is not the topic of this article) or are based on company announcements or funding announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:ORG. While there is coverage in TechCrunch, there isn't much substance there. Some of the refs like Bloomberg and WSJ don't even mention the company. The rest of the refs are non-RS and articles that just mention Magical along with a lot of other businesses. APK whisper in my ear 08:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per table below. This article is mildly refdumped, and there isn't even enough for GNG let alone WP:NCORP. —siro χかいo 09:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
lifehacker		~ [34]	not about company, short entry in list	✘ No
android police	? valnet	valnet	not about company, short entry in list	✘ No
mashable		~	not about company, short entry in list	✘ No
TechCrunch Page	relies heavily on interviews by founder and investor	~		✘ No
TechCrunch Wiggers (listed twice)	relies heavily on interview from founder	~		✘ No
TechCrunch Lunden	?	~	no mention	✘ No
WSJ			no mention	✘ No
product hunt	?	?	barely about company, minor product "#1 ranking"	✘ No
Business Insider	"Relationship: Investor"	~		✘ No
bloomberg			no mention	✘ No
fast company			not about company, short entry in list	✘ No
chome web store	company published	ugc/company		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per siroxo. Good job on that table. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NCORP Qwv (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (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 KDE Education Project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KTouch

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

Most of the content is uncited and promotional. Has been tagged since 2014 without improvement. Cannot find much in the way of sourcing to establish notability. Greenman (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination and multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDE Education Project. There are a few mentions here and there, but I don't think the overall depth is sufficient. Of course, a redirect would make it easier should that ever change. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE Education Project is a reasonable alternative to deletion, as this program clearly exists and has verifiable basic facts. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:18, 9 July 2023 (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!} 03:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teashark

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG and NSOFT. The only reliable independent coverage I could is a brief CNET article from 2008 ([35]) and a Softpedia post ([36]). I'm unclear on the editorial standards or reliability of the latter; previous RSN discussion suggests it may be a marginally reliable source but either way this limited coverage does not seem significant enough to suggest notability to me. Ineligible for PROD due to prior AfD. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Two sources in the nom fulfill GNG in my mind. CNET especially was extremely reputable for software in that era, and we shouldn't let recent issues discount that. Note that there are also some trivial mentions in reliable sources [37][38] that at least help with verifiability if not notability. —siro χかいo 23:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that CNET is reliable here, the reliability I'm unclear on is Softpedia. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I don't think that one reliable source is enough to show notability. Artem.G (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Softpedia's review seems marginally reliable. I've found some other sources ([39][40][41][42][43]) but those aren't nearly good enough together. SWinxy (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources listed above...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some references online but does not seem to meet on quality or notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Language barrier here, but [44] (found by SWinxy above) is relatively in-depth, and shows details of the browser (it's a 3rd party/independent manual that actually seems to describe some of the browser functionality and such, afaict) I've updated my !vote above from wk to k —siro χかいo 01:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this book, CNET, and Softpedia refs into the article —siro χかいo 02:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First source (the book) looks to be the guidelines on how to use the software - I don't believe it qualifies to confirm notability. I don't know much about Softpedia as an eligible source but if it is accepted, then the article itself is in-depth. CNET may qualify too. Onetimememorial (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2023 (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!} 07:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Foundry

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

Routine mentions don't pass WP:CORP. One of the three references is the company's own website. Uhooep (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy WP:RESCUE candidate, though there's really not much to rescue outside some additional sources. The developer of two major audio and video programs is definitely notable, even if they've since been sold off. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrSchimpf, did any "additional sources" turn up? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought they would, but two relists suggest they will not, so this might end up being a soft delete since nobody has brought any new ones (as a Wisconsinite I admit I've known the company, but that was years ago before they sold their products off). Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep This article is about a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The two references in the article are PR ~~and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, most that mention the company are PR or mentions-in-passing.~~ I was able to locate several analyst reports on the company which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Unfortunately, this can't be closed as Soft Deletion as it has received a vote to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantial coverage in the Wisconsin State Journal including in-depth articles on company-restructuring.[45]. Newspapers.com has hundreds of hits on the term "sonic foundry". This is available to us for free via Wikipedia Library.

Also, while not technically establishing notability, Sonic Foundry is listed on the NASDAQ exchange. As a result, there are plenty of reliable SEC filings on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR site with which to build an article. Those with financial statements are independently certified by independent accounting firms. Under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, CEOs are subject to criminal and financial penalties for misstatements.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy enough to find independent sources. Company has been around since 1991. Wisconsin State Journal, 24 Apr 2022, Sun · Page A26, June 15, 2023 MADISON, Wis.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sonic Foundry, Inc. (NASDAQ: SOFO). Lot of info out there but I don't have time to fix this but no reason that I can't be left for someone to fix. Nyth 63 03:02, 9 July 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeaTable

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

Not yet notable; no reliable sources (not enough). Interviews, paid columns and WP:MILL stuff. Edit.pdf (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TechCrunch article on SeaTable appears to be a genuine piece by one of its journalists (Rita Liao); the WP list of sources says that in that case, it's a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Tech Crunch article above establishes GNG for software. However, despite apparent good faith creation, this article's content is full of marketing jargon and phrasing, so I'm not sure it should remain up in its current form. —siro χかいo 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources in German for this German outfit. [46] seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One in Business Insider in German, also seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in another Wikipedia version --DH22 Mim (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DH22 Mim. Each Wikipedia has its own notability rules. enwiki's notability rules are some of the stricter ones, so comparing to other wikis that probably have easier notability rules is not a great argument. See also WP:OTHERLANGS. However, good sources from articles in other wikis could certainly be checked and mentioned here. Finding good sources and linking to them would be a much stronger argument. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently not for the company but rather for their product. I think it should probably be updated to focus more on the company instead, sources like TechCrunch's article would be a better fit that way. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2023 (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. I discounted a fairly considerable number of keep !votes that were not rooted in our policies/guidelines, but the more recent ones, which cite new sources not available at the time many delete !votes were cast, have gone largely unrebutted and are sufficient to push this into "consensus to keep" territory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invidious

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, non-primary coverage appears limited to tech blogs of dubious reliability and listicles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per nomination. Dawnbails (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invidious is backend of quite a few projects such as YouTube clients, Privacy redirects.Greatder —(talk) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
Keep Invidious is a valuable open-source project that is used by many people. As stated by another user, it is a frequent component of so-called privacy redirect plugins. These plugins typically consist of Quetre, Libreddit, Imginn, Nitter, ProxiTok, and Invidious. To state that this project is not notable is absurd. JoeBo82(talk)

Can you point to...any...coverage in a reputable tech magazine or academic journal? The best we've got right now is passing coverage in makeuseof.com [47], [48], a source described as unreliable to marginally reliable the one time it was brought to RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#Should_MakeUseOf.com_be_considered_a_reliable_source? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Rosguill: Because of the name, it is difficult to sort through unrelated search hits. Because of the purpose (downloads from YouTube, owned by Google), search results could be...suspect. These are not as big and "reliable" as NYTimes - List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times, but they are independent and arguably reputable, if not magazines or academic journals: Described at Free Software Foundation directory, written by Craig Topham, "an administrator and bureaucrat of the Free Software Directory",[49] Instructions and app written up at archlinux.org, known for reliable documentation (in some circles),[50][51] Windows apps described in Softpedia (has editor? team)[52][53] -- Yae4 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those links look like a mix of database entries and user-generated sources , neither of which typically contribute towards establishing notability. The Softpedia coverage appears to be mere-mentions unless I'm misunderstanding something. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the precise line is between user-generated unreliable like Wikipedia, versus a tightly controlled or curated more reliable wiki you can give some trust, like The Free Software Foundation and Arch Linux wikis, but I do know I've found info' at the latter two to solve problems. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re MakeUseOf.com: At RSN in January 2021, I called it unreliable before Newslinger called it marginally reliable. If Newslinger called it marginally reliable, it's probably reliable enough. Compared with Youtube-dl (aka yt-dlp or others), Invidious is only one take-down notice away from fame and clearer wiki-notability. IMO, Wikipedia is a little worse without the article. WP:IGNORE. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned on AlternativeTo [54], ProPrivacy [55] and several other tech sites e.g. [56] [57] [58]. The topic is notable (significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) and the article is a net benefit to the reader. Certes (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I've read through the linked sources here and from Yae4 and I'm not actually sure which ones are intended to be the examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure myself; it's a matter of opinion. None of them alone would be enough to save the article but, in total, they may be. Certes (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of blogs and UGC sites that mention Invidious, but the most reliable thing I've found was a passing mention in LifeHacker (via Yahoo). So, no, I don't think that'd be enough for an article. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i agree with all the reasons to keep this page. --XANA404 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — XANA404 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion. (AltheaCase (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
What? SWinxy (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on IAR. Also, while I don't think a cease-and-desist notice would make Invidious notable under our criteria (NOTNEWS and all that) I have to admit the timing is pretty funny Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the news. Google is a Major Benefactor ($50,000+) to Wikipedia, just saying. Follow the money. Adding: It will be interesting to see whether Invidious can raise a Streisand effect like Youtube-dl did, ~~without~~ being a [self-redacted] of Microsoft GitHub -- Yae4 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh, they're not going to inform the Cabal a week before they file a legal proceeding lol, Wikipedia is important but not that important. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP shows up on top of many searches, if there's an article. Coincidence? More coverage at AlternativeTo, FWIW. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TIL AlternativeTo has a news section. How reliable would that be? SWinxy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance they say AlternativeTo is "user generated" but looks like they have a couple editors/screeners reviewing submissions. They knew enough to refer to GitHub issue[59] not self-hosted invidious mirror: "Our code is already mirrored on our gitea". -- Yae4 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single source which clearly passes GNG. I don't think any of the blogs listed above in this AfD count towards GNG - they're not sufficiently secondary enough. I'm also hoping the closer discounts some of the poor !votes above when closing, as we're discussing whether there's enough reliable secondary sourcing for this to have a stand-alone article, not about ignoring rules or general agreement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have cited RAPID instead then, given that (if I had at all) I probably would have !voted weak delete but for recent events. I'm not sure it will achieve GNG or NSOFT level of coverage, even so, but I'm inclined to at least wait until we see how this plays out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but we can always recreate it if notability becomes obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to the closer - most of these keep !votes aren't well grounded in policy, and the sources that have been presented are still only blogs and not necessarily RS. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, mentions are not _significant_ coverage. Artem.G (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion of an Article on a topic which is increasing in relevance and public awareness Mattmill30 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recent Louis Rossmann YouTube video cited by Mattmill30 would seem to be significant independent coverage by a notable expert, if given exception from WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initiatives like Invidious are the only counterbalance to big tech's increasing impact on privacy. There is nothing on this page that is offensive, discriminatory, incites or victimizes criminal behavior. Google's take down order does not hold up under European law and thus can only apply to the US. Removing this page also means that everyone outside the US is affected by this measure. — 131.155.83.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 06:48, June 13, 2023 (UTC).
Comment: And now there is more significant independent coverage at Vice.com Motherboard.[60] -- Yae4 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surrounded by significant (and well-covered) controversy. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer, I don't believe there is a compelling case why IAR should be used to override GNG in this case. While Yae4 gets the closest, in my opinion I do not find any of the 'keep' arguments persuasive here in the face of the argument presented that GNG is not met. (There are a large number of low-quality keep !votes which cite no policy at all...) Daniel (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through the links provided there does not seem to be coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost every source is just a plain explanation of the product's features. The Vice article is interesting, but on its own isn't enough to establish significant independent coverage. CarringtonMist (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the last few days have seen a number of sources covering this software (see the most recent three references in the article). It may be wise for delete !voters to revisit their rationales at this point, since more sources exist now (and most, I claim, clear the bar). jp×g 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation and discussion of the newly cited sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Vice article is an ok start to a case for notability but collectively we're still far short from meeting WP:GNG. I can see the logic behind IAR-ing user-generated and/or primary documentation for subjects like this which exist in a media ecosystem where people primarily communicate through these crowdsourced platforms, but I'm not sure I'm quite convinced by it without an explanation of why the usual UGC problems don't apply here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't translated yet, but here is Der_Spiegel with what looks like fairly significant coverage.[61] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vice and Der Spiegel articles, along with this TorrentFreak article and maybe some of the prior less reliable mentions, seem like a good start, and there may be more coverage of this topic in the near future. I found this article useful for getting a brief overview with links and resources on what seems like a relatively important topic in a niche technology area where reliable sources are less common. I do feel like at this point, especially given the recent controversy, there is a benefit to keeping this article, at least for now. – notwally (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw TorrentFreak coverage, but had not done due diligence. They've been discussed at RSN (unclear consensus), and cited hundreds of times. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tutanota is a competitor in email services (is not impartial), and this has "blog" in the URL, but it looks like significant coverage from an independent (AFAIK) source, at least a little better than an average blog. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard of Invidious today for the first time, which might prove non-notability as of now, but was happy to find the article on Wikipedia. Yes, the article should be improved. Yes, Invidious will have to gain notability. However, if we delete it now it will be hard to resurrect it when it becomes notable. Please let's keep it and improve it. ale (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ghacks is how I found out about Invidious, then I saw it written about on other places, some of which others have already mentioned on here (AlternativeTo, Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel). The fact that they recently received a take-down notice from YouTube makes it instantly more notable than it was before. I think the page needs improving but we should keep it. Themidget17 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we only have one editor making a strong case that GNG is met. Everything else is on an IAR basis. It is possible to build an encyclopedia article on numerous sources that don't count towards GNG by themselves, but "it's important" and "it's useful" aren't valid reasons to keep if WP:V is violated by the use of unreliable sources. Re-listing because it appears that more sources have been and are being made available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG not met. Keep arguments here seem lacking in substance. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the (post-listing) addition of dedicated coverage from Der Spiegel and Vice seems to push this comfortably over the line. -- Visviva (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @78.26: I made no reference to IAR in my above comment. I draw attention to this article in Der Spiegel, a very reputable international newspaper listed as such at RSP, and here in Vice, which has no conensus about reliability and bias, but whose coverage is pretty robustly held as conferring notability. I think it is often quite trashy, but there is not any consensus that Vice is unreliable, or that coverage in it does not confer notability. Both of these articles are in-depth coverage of the subject (i.e. about it exclusively) written by independent sources in non-specialty publications. Moreover, there are other news sites here; TechRadar is mentioned in RSN archives as being "generally reliable". I do not see that anybody has made an objection to these sources -- I don't like all of them either, but that isn't a deletion rationale. Granted, many of the !votes here were cast some weeks ago, before these sources existed; I would urge closers to consider this. jp×g 08:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yae4 and I were the only people who explicitly referenced IAR. Myself, I don't believe that V was ever really an issue with this article (the claims in the article seem well within the bounds of what we'd allow use of ABOUTSELF or reasonably competent SPS for), rather encyclopedicity and NPOV, and that'd be why my !vote leaned more heavily on IAR than the consequences of the takedown notice. If focusing on the latter two, I don't personally believe the coverage since then transformative (though it doesn't hurt) but in my opinion the issues weren't insurmountable in the first place. I probably should have expanded on this in more detail in my original statement though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep 1 2 Baratiiman (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Site has become notable since the listing thanks to the coverage from Vice, Der Spiegelm and TorrentFreak. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (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.