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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Software[edit]

NeDi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is written like an advertisement and is not worth keeping in my opinion. This article also doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. A previous discussion was had about deleting this article and no action despite a delete consensus. Garsh (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2024 (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/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D animation software[edit]

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

Notability/usefulness not demonstrated. Just a list of licenses of softwares. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Software, and Lists. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list fails WP:NLIST as we cannot say that the list deserves to exist per the article's first sentence, "this is a list of 3D animation apps that have articles on Wikipedia". Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you link something that literally contradicts what you said? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list. More useful than a category since more information is shown. It is useful if you want to see a list of all the software of this type, and be able to sort it by its type of license to find what you are looking for. Additional information could be added, a column showing what year it became available, another column listing if its still being developed and if not just list when the last update was, etc. Dream Focus 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The mere fact that all of these have a Wikipedia page makes it a valid list under WP:LISTPURP. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animaker[edit]

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

I'm doubting that the software is notable based on the sources cited. -- Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USNews lists it as "Best Basic Web-Based Animation Software", which is something, I guess Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cutover[edit]

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

WP:SUSTAINED notability has not been established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO as well, this is sourced straight from press releases and venture capital sites. I don't find anything extra we can add to get it to notability... Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a huge promotion. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it contains promotional content. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs)} 01:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingtone[edit]

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

Passing mentions only (including WP BEFORE), WP MILL. Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Software, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No bluelinked entries on which to base a comparison (the two bluelinks are just redirects, one to this article itself). Hence this falls into the same bucket at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination), etc.

I did read the two previous nominations closed as keep, but I don't find the keep argument there convincing at all, and I think it's time we reevaluate this after over a decade. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of notable IRC client programs for mobile devices?? What I see is a collection of non-notable programs what falls fould of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The Banner talk 00:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Banner. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the 15 clients is notable. Numberguy6 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is NOTCONSUMERREPORTS. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenderd[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant in-depth coverage. I was not sure about the reliability of this [1] as its mostly covered tech related news. Also i dont know if i need to write this but upon google searching "tenderd.com", i found that the creator mention this corporation somewhere in the off-wiki site. Initiating this AfD to get input from senior editors. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and all the references are cited in the article such as coverage in Bloomberg, Tech Crunch, Business Insider, The National etc. But despite that, @Libraa decided to take this to AfD. I'm confident this nomination is driven by retaliation. @Libraa2019 appears to be taking offense to my AfD nominations, where they consistently voted for keeping the articles, only for the discussions to result in redirects. Therefore I suggest SK this under WP:CSK. However, I want to emphasize that such retaliatory behavior is not acceptable. I'm unsure why they're taking this so personally. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal, its just that i saw you mentioned it off-wiki, and i am unsure if its acceptable or not therefore initiated AfD. Also it is nowhere retaliation as you nominated almost 9 creations of mine sine last month [2], i just initiated this one due to the reason i found it off-wiki (will not share that link as it leads to breach of privacy). Libraa2019 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, Why does it even matter if I mentioned it off-wiki? It's one of the most funded startups based in the UAE. So you want to delete it just because I mentioned it off-wiki? Seriously? This just proves that this AfD is entirely retaliatory. It also suggests that you're attempting to locate me through Google. Now I can guess why I've been receiving a lot of off-wiki attacks lately. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, Its not retaliation, please assume good faith as we are assuming your editings as good faith too [3] I am not sure about the reliability of the sources you mentioned. And as you mentioned it off-wiki, its likely that you have a connection with them. As per my understanding wikipidea does'nt permit COI? Libraa2019 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, First, you're blatantly HOUNDING me off-wiki, and now you're audaciously accusing me of having a COI with Tenderd! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have'nt. You are accusing me without any evidence just because i found some off-wiki news source which anyone can find as its a reliable Pakistani newspaper. Please avoid casting aspersions. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. For background: (Redacted). About the coverage, it is mostly routine funding rounds per WP:ORGTRIV, (for more read essay WP:SERIESA). The National apparently looks a direct in-depth article about the company, but when you read it, unfortunately it is just full of quotes, no independent content, failing WP:ORGIND. A secondary source must "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and for corporate articles we have tough standards. What the author did in The National article is just post all the quotes, just promo content. No action needed against Saqib. 2001:8F8:1267:606B:BD92:3040:C1F0:74FD (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,it looks WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia. A startup which attracted a bit of coverage about its fundraising, but nothing really beyond that. Coverage lacks depht. I have the feeling it will become notable at some point, but not now. Cavarrone 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An obscure jargon term coined by IBM for a now-defunct project (a collaborative real-time editor named "Blue Spruce", and a successor called "OpenCoWeb"), which the article hardly mentions at all. Independent sources describing the project only use the term "cooperative web" in passing. This should not be confused with unrelated uses of the term "cooperative web". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term is still used, but doesn't seem to apply to the concept here. Article appears to have been created without inline citations so I can't assess the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pdftotext[edit]

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

Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if this could usefully be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of PDF software? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the best bet. A section could be added on conversion software specifically, or on miscellaneous PDF software. It is mentioned in passing in a row in the "Linux and Unix" section of that list. BD2412 T 20:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Testing Framework[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this article in no relation to test automation frameworks, to which I would say there is more GNG than what is presented in this? Conyo14 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unit.js[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find reliable, secondary sources about the subject. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has one ref from a conference paper by author. Passing mentions in conference papers and low-quality publications. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: created by a long-blocked editor with a history of mass-generation of insignificant stubs. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

API Sanity Checker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing significant in Google, or Scholar. Clear delete. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references I can find are the software itself and a few passing mentions in Scholar. I can't find any evidence of notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUnit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CsUnit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has one ref from a predatory journal. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cuppa (Java library)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdaControl[edit]

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed by article creator who added a user testimony. Since this testimony is self-published, it cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The testimony is from Jacob Sparre Andersen, editor of the Ada User Journal and a subject-matter expert. I also found ~~[4]~~ and [5]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck [1] as the bulk of this information is copied from AdaControl's website, as is was the article lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get an access denied error when viewing [2]. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Login to the WP:TWL. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Sorry, I didn't realize that it was an expiring link. While archive.org deems this upload to be spam, go to [6] and click on the first result. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that source isn't independent though. It's published by a committee called QualOSS. One of the members of QualOSS, as listed on the first page of their report, is AdaCore. AdaCore has provided services for the benefit of Adalog -- see this document that suggests a substantial rewrite of one of Adalog's systems. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reads like a design document about how they simplified a language feature or component of their software called "Adalog". It treats "Adalog" as a software component or feature instead of an entity. It shows example features of transformations they want libadalang, an analysis tool for Ada, to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching further in their GitHub repos, according to https://github.com/AdaCore/langkit/blob/master/langkit/support/langkit_support-adalog-solver.adb, "Adalog" here is a pseudocode language made by AdaCore. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, the testimony is self-published. Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable? None of the presentation contents have been reviewed by others. I don't have reason to doubt Andersen's credentials, but one self-published source alone cannot establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable?
WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self-published, it was presented at the "Reliable Software Technologies – Ada-Europe 2017", proceedings published by Springer, see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-60588-3 Jprosen75 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be JP Rosen, whose connection to AdaControl is explained in this bio. They've created ~46% of the page. I've left them a COI warning. I'm tagging the article, which also contains promotional language like "gives the same level of accuracy as the language", soon. Still, I don't think that means we must delete, as these are all fixable issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been out for nearly a week now and most of the sources found don't really establish notability. Are we sure this article should still be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see my response above. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"gives the same level of accuracy as the language" is really about ASIS, and explains why ASIS was chosen for the tool.

Yes, I am the author of the software, and I'm willing to improve as required. Jprosen75 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did your authorship have to be pointed out by another user? You need to read WP: COI. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chill it, I already sent a message about COI. Not every new user can automatically know to read all policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true, then it needs a source that states that claim in full. IMO using the same "backend" doesn't necessarily mean they have the same level of "accuracy". Aaron Liu (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana (payment service)[edit]

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

Promotion (e.g. ISO 27001 Certification and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Certificate...) no sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article not to promote but is it allowed if I change the information so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement? You can find information about Dana (payment service) Badak Jawa (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BoraVoroif I find your decision to give a deletion tag very odd because it should be after a few minutes or a few days after the article was created Badak Jawa (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

half a year isn't enough? BoraVoro (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoro and @Wcquidditch After I took another look at the article, it seemed to be indirectly promotional, so the article deserved to be deleted. It was my fault for creating the article without citing credible sources and I also recognized most of the references were promotional after I googled them Badak Jawa (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the sources provided on the page and Dana was on the top 5 as the most popular e-wallet apps in Indonesia in 2019,^[1] the company is notable enough to meet WP:NCORP. Additionaly, the app is popular among Gen-Z Indonesians and used by 115 million users.^[2]^[3] Concerning the article is too promotional, I have removed those advertorial content. Faldi00 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also as one of top 5 mobile wallet in Indonesia according to 2022 report. It's not difficult to look up independent source or even academic publication on DANA, so it should pass NCORP. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jakarta Post, Jakarta Post. "The top five e-wallet apps in Indonesia". thejakartapost.com. Jakarta Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
^ Liu, Meng. "DANA Is Popular Among Generation Z In Indonesia". forrester.com. Forrester. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
^ Zahra, Valina. "Top 10 must-have fintech apps and services in Indonesia". indonesiabusinesspost.com. Indonesia Business Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

Keep: The tone has been improved, and on 2023 it reached 170 million users, so it should pass NCORP. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 00:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three sources above show that the payment system is notable, I'm ok with the sources, notability is met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[7][8]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [9], [10], [11]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [12], [13], [14], [15]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.

~~Weak delete~~ per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:

There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([16], [17], [18] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.

I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.

Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-install[edit]

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

Article has been undeleted following soft deletion from the previous AfD. Despite that, I still think that this fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT, as searching for "zero install" (with quotes) on Google returned no reliable independent secondary sources. GTrang (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have changed the article so it now describes a concept, not the particular bit of software, and therefore think that the WP:GNG is more applicable. Some of the old information (about some product) is kept as a section. I am not attached to this text, so if it helps to keep the article, the whole section "Zero Install" (note the uppercase letters) can go. A decent amount of OK sources can be found if the same search is performed on Google Scholar. The problem is that most of these sources do not provide much coverage. The only coherent source found by me that has WP:SIGCOV is a bachelor's thesis, and thus somewhat weak from the reputability perspective. --Викидим (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep since it is not a product, but a kind of process the essays are not relevant. I think more time is required to allow improvement. I remember this concept from over a decade ago, so it is not a new-fangled idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet another option to consider is to merge the lead into Installation (computer programs)#Necessity (renaming the destination section accordingly). The destination section currently has no sources. --Викидим (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has become some kind of Frankenstein combination page that disambiguates between several usages of the term zero-install, even though the article was originally about a specific piece of software. I would rather have this article deleted and then a new article created about zero-install created, if the general concept is even notable in the first place. Notability doesn't stack -- using the term in two different contexts to establish notability is very confusing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources related to a concept itself are a B. S. WP:SCHOLARSHIP thesis (it's not even masters!) only cited by a patent and the software and a WP:RESEARCHGATE paper that does not appear to be in any peer-reviewed journal or have significant citations. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a term, I don't think it currently meets WP:NEO though it might meet Wiktionary's inclusion criteria... I'm not actually sure, I don't really edit there. Depends on if there's a third use and the two currently cited count as "durably archived" I guess, which seems plausible enough. Delete. (actually, now that I think about it a bit more, it might get deleted on wikt: as a sum of parts) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9wm[edit]

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

I think this fails WP: N. I found this which gives a review of 9wm in a few sentences and some mentions in a couple of books, but nothing more than that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to fail WP:NPRODUCT and perhaps WP:NOTCHANGELOG, being largely cited to primary reports of software releases. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP: N. This page has a pretty unfortunate history with AfDs, but the issue of sourcing still remains. The papers that discuss the language in depth are primary, and its citations are brief mentions of the language itself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what has changed from the last three (!) AfDs, and the sources (of which there are nine) look okay to me. jp×g 🗯️ 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the AfD rationale, which points out that the sources are either primary or not in-depth? The previous AfDs discussed citation counts and number of hits on Google, which are not valid rationales for keeping an article. Similarly, the number of sources an article has doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Looking at the citations of the most cited paper, there is independent sigcov such as [19] and [20]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "independent sigcov" was authored by the same people who wrote the "most cited paper" that you're referring to. Those sources are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put a wrong link for [1], apologies. I meant to put [21]. [2] is still independent. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] was written by Brunekreef, who also was an author on the original paper proposing the language. It is a primary source. [3] is a very short paragraph in the related work section of a paper that doesn't actually build on top of Alma-0. It is not significant coverage. None of the sources you provided can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, weirdly the article lists him as Brunekree while the paper calls him Brunekeef. Interesting how a single letter can create such a large visual difference.
As long as something isn't trivial mention, it's significant coverage. The RAPID paper presents an entire paragraph of details to compare with RAPID built on top of them. You also still have the other results that cited the ALMA paper. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claimed threshold for significance is arbitrarily low and self-serving. It needs to discuss the subject directly and in detail, and this source does neither. The "entire paragraph" you claim establishes notability discusses the subject in relation to another language (i.e. not directly) and is only a few sentences in a 13-page paper that discusses something else entirely (i.e. not in detail). You've also done nothing to show that the other results can establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses it directly and in detail. In the context of something else means that it's another topic, not that it's not directly. In fact, SIGCOV directly says that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just that it's "a few sentences" does not mean these sentences don't have detail. All normal paragraphs have just a few sentences (in this case, 6). The paragraph details Alma-0's semantics, nature, and statements.

Other sources include [22] which talks about how Alma-0 is "pure dynamic predicate logic". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand that it needs not be the primary subject of the article, but I still don't believe this discusses the subject directly. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Alma-0 is... Alma-0 uses dynamics in this way..." instead of "Apt made a language called Alma-0. Apt then got married." or "Dynamic languages include Alpha-G0, Alma-0, Aleph-0...", ergo it is direct.

I also don't think you can dispute [4]. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add those sources to the article? HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a problem with adding [4] because it has a ton of technical maths language I don't understand. The other one maybe. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought forth two sources that you failed to realize weren't secondary, a source that only meets your arbitrary standard of notability, and a source that you admitted you don't understand. I don't think there's much more of a discussion to be had here. If these are the best sources you could find, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does me not understanding what [4] is saying have any bearing on it counting towards notability or not? We have a ton of technical topics, and they all meet notability. As far as I'm concerned, [3] only fails your arbitrary standard of directness notability. As long as something does not require OR to extract information and addresses the subject directly and in detail, it counts for SIGCOV. Just that a notable thing is niche doesn't mean we should not include it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly explain why a source establishes notability if you don't understand it, and the onus is on you to show that a source can establish notability. Anything else is a massive waste of time for people who nominate articles for deletion. I've also made clear arguments based on the text of the definition of notability that [3] does not provide significant coverage -- there is no arbitrariness here. Again, what is there that's left to discuss? HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your argument that bringing Alma-0 up for acknowledgement of inspiration isn't direct? Have you responded to #c-Aaron_Liu-20240531174600-HyperAccelerated-20240531171800, which shows how it is not just WP:TRIVIAL? Further, how would it be productive to delete this article? Have you seen the reasons the notability guideline exist? How does any of this impede us from having enough content to write articles if we get someone who understands formal computer science? I understand that the sources address the subject directly and in detail, and that is enough.
@JPxG, would you like to comment? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have sourcing guidelines, and this article cannot meet those standards, specifically WP: NSOFT. One paragraph in one paper cannot establish notability and you haven't actually shown that the source that you don't understand establishes notability in any of the eight messages you've written. The sourcing concern still remains, so this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like what HA's asking for here is fairly extreme: the sources can't just talk about the programming language, they have to talk exclusively about the programming language, they have to do so in a way that's accessible to laymen, et cetera. I don't think we need to have whole textbooks written about a programming language for it to pass GNG.

It's worth noting that the original papers specifying the language are published in journals, which is not just some guy's random website -- it's an editorial process where multiple people signed off on this language being worthy of note and constituting a contribution to the field.

Overall, it just doesn't really seem to me like there's a reason to delete the article -- the guidelines are not normally interpreted in such a severe way -- and there's not a compelling reason to go out of our way to interpret them more severely here (there's no BLP issues, for example, and we're not getting paid cash bonuses based on how many AfDs close as delete). jp×g 🗯️ 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources per WP: NSOFT. That could be a paper discussing extensions of Alma-0 by independent researchers or a book chapter about programming languages. One paragraph in one article does not meet that bar, and neither does an article, regardless of its length, that nobody here understands. The authority of these sources isn't under question. If this protracted discussion results in the improvement of the article, I am more than happy to withdraw this AfD. However, I have yet to see evidence of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see an argument for why us being too unintelligent to understand the paper's maths discounts it from notability. NSOFT does not have any mention of that and I don't think anyone can disagree that it's direct and in detail. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [23] summarized it as "how dynamic predicate logic provides an adequate semantics for a non-trivial fragment of Alma-0, and how inference tools for dynamic predicate logic become verification tools for the hybrid programming language". Might be helpful in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software[edit]

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

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g 🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.

What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.

"Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.

"What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.

"8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.

"10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.

"Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.

"9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g 🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.

Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.

Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2

Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.

Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015

Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.

Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf

Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

jp×g 🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool)[edit]

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

This was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage. The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage. The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability. Are you sure this article should be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. —WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurrealDB[edit]

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

An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vili talk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.

However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vili talk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.

Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [24] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:

ORGCRIT assess table

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material	– Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no	Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV	Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail	First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions	Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Literally a press release		Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19.		Leaning no
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs.	Short circuit	Blogs aren't considered RS	At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19.	Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement	Same as above
Citations to their own website
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	Interview with no secondary content
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	probably not, but not assessed	No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19. (Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)		Dubious	... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.	This is a press release
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17.		...
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19.	Sponsored	Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9.		At least this one is an RS
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken).	– Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here	Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick	– Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here	3.2 is fine	—
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?".		Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6.			Passing mention

I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 Could you please add https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb to your assessment, I will be adding this to the article Mr Vili talk 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?

Sources like [25] [26] Mr Vili talk 04:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vili talk 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) UPE sock, unknown master, blocked by Ponyo Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is leaning on the side of deletion, I would prefer this page to be Draftified, as I expect this article to eventually become notable after the SurrealDB commercial launch, which should generate some more reliable and significant coverage Mr Vili talk 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Alpha3031's assessment of the sources identified for this subject. That we're even considering this, an "official government organization of the Government of Lumina" ([27]), as a reliable source is a rather damning sign of non-notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~lol what a joke Freedun (yippity yap) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

LogFS[edit]

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices, A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories, Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level, DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage, TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion, and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Jakarta Post, Jakarta Post. "The top five e-wallet apps in Indonesia". thejakartapost.com. Jakarta Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

[2] Liu, Meng. "DANA Is Popular Among Generation Z In Indonesia". forrester.com. Forrester. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

[3] Zahra, Valina. "Top 10 must-have fintech apps and services in Indonesia". indonesiabusinesspost.com. Indonesia Business Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]