Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Software|sig=~~~~}} 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software/archive 2

watch

Software

AutoCAST

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

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

Non-notable product, website is dead, does not meet criteria for notability Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Earth3D

Earth3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; the presentation "Comparison of Open Source Virtual Globes" is the only reliable source I found with anything close to significant coverage, and even that has dubious reliability. Note: there are unrelated applications also named "Earth3D".

DePRODed with rationale It said there would be not enough sources, only "Open Source Virtual Globes". But it actually contains links to the still existing SourceForge project and to the still existing, 22 year old website of the project. So yes, the project is real. This nomination does not question whether the project is real, but rather asserts that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The other sources are not independent and do not count towards notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for the explanation. I am the original developer of Earth3D, but not the author of the Wikipedia article.

I found several independent sources which may be relevant to the notability assessment:

• com! Das Computer-Magazin, issue 1/2006, p. 52, published an editorial item titled “Satelliten-Fotoshow – Earth 3D 1.0.4”. Earth3D is also mentioned on the cover of the issue. The article independently describes the software, its real-time 3D visualization, zoom capabilities and data sources. Bibliographic details: com! Das Computer-Magazin, 1/2006, p. 52, Neue Mediengesellschaft Ulm mbH, ISSN 1612-7358.
• Mathias Walker, “Comparison of Open Source Virtual Globes”, FOSS4G 2010, Barcelona:

https://blog.sourcepole.ch/assets/2010/9/10/foss4g2010_virtual_globes.pdf

This presentation compares Earth3D with other virtual globe systems and includes technical comparison tables.

• Michal Bodnár, “Research on Geovisualization Methods and Technology for the WikiGlobe System” (2013):

https://maps.fsv.cvut.cz/diplomky/2013_DP_Bodnar_Research_on_geovisualization_methods_and_technology_for_the_wikiglobe_system.pdf

The thesis discusses Earth3D in the context of existing virtual-globe software.

The com! article is a contemporary independent print source from the period in which Earth3D was actively developed. The FOSS4G source provides additional independent specialist coverage. The print source is not available online, but Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to be online. I have a printed copy of the com! magazine myself. Dg3942 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLMs to assist your comments. If you are User:D.gunia then you are in fact the original author of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the software in multiple reliable sources, which generally means analysis with some level of detail; more detailed than a brief description.

The text of the com! article is available on archive.org . It's possible the OCR butchered some text but it only seems to have a brief description of Earth3D, not detailed analysis.

"Comparison of Open Source Virtual Globes" was already discussed above; it's a corporate presentation and unreliable by default, and also not really significant coverage.

“Research on Geovisualization Methods and Technology for the WikiGlobe System” is a master's thesis, which is not a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and even that source only devotes a brief paragraph to Earth3D. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

ok, I took a look at the first instance of the article and you are right, that looks like my writing. I just didn't recognize the current version of the article because I wouldn't be able to write like that. I am not a native speaker.

You are right that the com! article is only a short article. I thought such a reference in a real publication would be enough but I also didn't know the 100 words rule (or anything else about this, maybe these rules were added after I wrote the article 22 years ago...).

Ok, so Wikipedia requires more references than the ones I mentioned. Sorry, I didn't know that. You are probably right. Then the article probably does not fulfil these rules. :-/ Dg3942 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on improving Wikipedia and for having checked my sources! :-) Dg3942 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I have thought about it more and looked at the com! article again. Earth3d was not only described in the magazine with a screenshot and a short article but also shown directly on the cover as "Satelliten-Fotos Earth 3D 1.0.4 S. 52". So maybe showing it on the cover makes the source more significant. Dg3942 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I have found another source. Earth3d was described in the "ISPRS SC NewsLetter" (International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) in February 2011:

https://sc.isprs.org/media/tbwjjsce/isprs_sc_vol4_no4.pdf Dg3942 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, by "significant coverage" we mean analysis with some amount of detail, which this is not. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete The sources currently in the article aren't enough to satisfy GNG, and the only source I could find that may be talking about this software is this, which doesn't pass WP:100WORDS. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: If anyone else decides to look for references on this subject, please note that a lot of the matches I found for 'Earth 3D' were actually talking about 'LLNL-Earth3D', which is apparently completely different. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Cameleon (programming language)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the independent sources here (not authored by Tariel or Sévricourt) have significant coverage of the programming language; they just briefly mention it or cite the original paper. The original paper has only 4 citations on Google Scholar. DePRODed in 2014.

Note: there are several unrelated academic projects also named "Cameleon", such as CAMELEON Reference Framework, "CAMELEON project", etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete: The only citation of I could find does not even mention the programming language in the body of the paper (excluding self-citations, of course). Agree with nominator's assessment that the subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Accelq

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

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

Looks like a non-notable company. The only source passing as independent significant coverage is Forrester Wave. Vgbypw (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Beye

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

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

Fails WP:GNG; the only mention I found in a possibly-reliable independent source is (Packt has dubious reliability), and even that is not significant coverage. Note that is a self-published blog that also only briefly mentions BEYE/BIEW in a list rather than containing significant coverage. DePRODed in 2009. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete I couldn't find any good sources myself and I don't think any of the sources currently in the article are independent and reliable given most of them seem to be user-created and/or primary. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Maintenance tags since 2009 and every reference is the project's own SourceForge pages or its website, with a directory listing and a self-published blog as the closest things to outside notice. My own search found nothing either; WP:GNG is failed. Onatic (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Lunar Magic

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lunar Magic
• Articles for deletion/Lunar Magic (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lunar Magic (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lunar Magic (4th nomination)

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

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

I propose deleting this page because it does not clear notability thresholds. It has minimal supporting references, and some of those references only mention it incidentally. The Red Bull reference, for example, is really about Super Mario Maker 2, with some focus paid to PangeaPanga, and only a trivial mention of Lunar Magic. The Vice reference is the most substantial citation, and even that article is about the larger modding community.

I believe to the extent that Lunar Magic should be referenced in wikipedia, it can be referenced in other relevant pages (video game modding, Mario games and topics, etc). Geethree (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: while as far as I can tell every AfD at this title has been on articles on this subject, none of them to date have ended the same way: the first nomination from 2006 ended in redirection to Super Mario World, the second nomination from 2010 ended in deletion, and the current article survived the third nomination from 2013. None of this should serve as much of an indicator of what will transpire in 2026; for what it's worth, the current article has been tagged as a potential NPRODUCT failure since 2023. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Super Mario World. It gets mention in "Gaming Hacks" calling it "spectacular", so there is a reason to include it without being undue. However, it lacks any significant coverage, making a standalone article untenable. The coverage shown in the previous AfD was extremely weak, and it's clear AfD was drastically more lenient back then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

APatch

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

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

Previously created, draftified, and declined at Draft:APatch. Recreated; this version has no sources besides vague waves at the WP:PRIMARY documentation of the software.

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources to be found. The previous draft referenced a forum post, WP:BEFORE finds only forum posts and self-published blogs. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete, there are a few mentions in WP:RS (, ) but nothing rising to the level of significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, that first source is a self-published ebook - Gbooks gives publisher as author, and it also reads to be LLM generated. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I've also re-formatted the article. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.The editor also appears to use LLMs in all of their article creations. AriuCH (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – the article has no citations; the links are the project's own site, GitHub and a personal blog (WP:V, WP:NSOFT). Kukuryza (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

BengalOS

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

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

Article about a Linux distribution. I can find very little information about this software and it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT based on the sources in the article or my wider searches. In terms of the article's sources: is a page listing various softwares including this one; does not seem to be independent and is a blog linking a social media post. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Other references include:

  - https://wiki.debian.org/immutable (both the distro and talks mentioning it). Note that although the source repositories are hosted on Debian infrastructure it is an independent project

  Other referencs

  - https://linmob.net/weekly-update-32-2026/ mentioning it along other distributions

  - Mention at Mobile Linux Hackday: https://www.linuxexpres.cz/aktuality/mobile-linux-hackday-8

  - Coverage on Habr: https://habr.com/ru/news/1056084/

  - Runtimewire: https://runtimewire.com/article/phosh-0-56-0-mobile-linux-immutable-updates?utm_source=chatgpt.com Blurredmobi (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I modeled this after KDE Linux which serves a similar role but for Desktop systems. Blurredmobi (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia needs significant coverage of BengalOS, which means sources that examine it in some level of detail. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Phosh, fails WP:GNG per nom and my above comment. Current article has no reliable sources so there is nothing to merge. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd support this proposed redirect, seems a sensible target. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Korala Associates Limited

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Korala Associates Limited
• Articles for deletion/Korala Associates Limited (2nd nomination)

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

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

Restored after a soft delete. The sourcing still consists of the company's own site, industry association pages and award listings. Fails WP:NCORP. Kqol • talk 23:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Scotland. Kqol • talk 23:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG, uses primary sources and also looks like a violation of WP:PROMO here. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep this here is significant coverage in a reliable source The Scotsman and The Herald piece here is minor coverage so a weak keep, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

LEDAS

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

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP: press releases blogs and wikipedia itself only. No independent in-depth coverage. Kqol • talk 23:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Russia. Kqol • talk 23:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  https://deelip.com/bricsys-and-ledas-a-tale-of-two-cad-software-companies/

  https://www.engineering.com/a-lean-cad-company-punches-above-its-weight/

  https://www.engineering.com/new-3d-modeling-cloud-platform-offers-real-time-collaboration/

  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-39866-0_42 Vayvor (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find any sources that clearly meet the WP:SIRS criteria. To address the sources above: Deelip.com is an unreliable blog, the first engineering.com article at best contains borderline-significant coverage of LEDAS, the second engineering.com article is churnalism, and the journal publication is non-independent (written by LEDAS employees). It's possible that their former product LGS is notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Tango (software company)

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

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

The sources are unreliable and do not provide SIGCOV. The company is a young startup with fundraising history that does not establish notability under WP:NCORP. Never-ending string (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination says that the sources are unreliable and mainly about funding. However, WP:CORPDEPTH says that a headline about a routine event does not prove that the rest of the source lacks substantial coverage. A funding-focused headline therefore does not automatically disqualify a source if the article discusses the company or product in detail.

The dot.LA article does more than report the funding round. It explains why Tango was created, its early development and pilot customers, how the software works, and how it compares with similar tools.

The SiliconANGLE article also contains substantial coverage of the software. It describes the platform, its intended use, and how it differs from robotic process automation. It also includes comments from an independent industry analyst. That is why the article is more than a routine funding announcement.

The G2 comparison gives Tango substantial coverage as one of five platforms. It explains how the software works, its main features, and limitations involving customization and pricing. This is substantial product coverage (WP:PRODUCTREV), not a simple directory listing.

The TechCrunch article, the funding, award, and company-authored sources are supporting sources. However, the dot.LA, SiliconANGLE, and G2 articles provide enough substantial secondary coverage to meet WP:NCORP.

If I have misunderstood any of these sources or the guidelines, I welcome corrections. Thanks. 56bonet56 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete: The funding round pieces are obvious churnalism based on this press release and interviews with the founders; most other sources in the article are similar. The G2 piece is borderline in terms of significant coverage since it is one entry in a list, and that is still just a single source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think either SiliconANGLE or dot.LA is obvious churnalism. I agree that SiliconANGLE is borderline because a substantial part of its opening follows the press release. dot.LA, on the other hand, goes much further and should not be treated as a rewritten funding announcement or churnalism.

I can now see that the SiliconANGLE article is borderline, as I mentioned earlier. However, it contains material not included in the release: discussion of Gong and RPA and comments from an independent industry analyst. That's why it is more than a pure press-release rewrite.

The dot.LA article is different. It covers Tango's earlier "Twitch for work" concept, pilot customers, comparisons with Camtasia and Bit.ai, product limitations, development history, and future direction, none of which are included in the press release. Some information comes from the founders, but the article contains reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material.

Under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, the fact that an article was prompted by a funding announcement does not make the entire source trivial or dependent. Discounting SiliconANGLE as borderline may be reasonable, but saying that dot.LA is "obvious churnalism" does not match the content of the article. 56bonet56 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you using LLMs to write these comments? Maybe 2-3 sentences in each article are "reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material". That is not in-depth independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm spending like 45 minutes writing each of the responses in the discussion, so no, AI is not writing them for me. But since English is not my first language, I'm obviously using it to polish the responses so that it's useful in the discussion and so I can correctly express my stance.

Regarding the "2-3 sentences" being "reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material", I agree if we are talking about SiliconANGLE. However, the dot.LA article contains around 7–8 sentences (roughly 20% of the article) that is "reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material".

I don't want to get stuck on counting it word by word, but the point is that the dot.LA article still seems to me to be in-depth, independent coverage. 56bonet56 (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you that the LLM is not making your points stronger. I can also assure you that counting individual words and sentences in an article is not helping things either.

The SiliconAngle and dot.LA sources are notices of funding rounds. Even if the article has other things besides the sentence "this company raised X dollars", we generally tend not to count these sources towards notability because they lack analytical depth. That is, sources that count towards notability are generally "accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization" according to WP: CORPTRIV. These articles appear to draw heavily from quotations or projections from the company themselves.

The G2 comparison comes from a marketing firm -- I have serious questions as to the reliability and the independence of the source. Undisclosed advertising is very common, unfortunately. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I can understand why you don't see the company as notable under those guidelines. I just want to ask you for advice then (HyperAccelerated, Helpful Raccoon). Do you think it would be possible to remake the article solely about the software (then it wouldn't need to pass NCORP rules, I assume, and many software articles are on Wikipedia with little to no sources)?

I'm asking because the software is really what interests me, while the company itself isn't really what I'm interested in. I was writing about the company because I thought it should be done this way and to add some background to the software. Additionally, I think it could be genuinely interesting as a Wikipedia article, though probably briefer than the current version. Thanks for response! 56bonet56 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Software articles still need to meet WP:GNG. As for the software articles with little to no sources, they should either be deleted or should have better sources added. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Does not meet WP: GNG. Can't find sufficient sourcing from a WP: BEFORE to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ~2026-53159-97 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Aareon

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

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

I see no evidence of this company passing WP:NCORP. Every source here is affiliated with the company or is a press release. Over on de-wiki, the longer article has more sources, but most are still press releases and the company's own website, and those that aren't are WP:CORPTRIV about capital raising, routine transactions, etc., and WP:TRADES publications. There is no evidence in either of these articles or in my WP:BEFORE search of WP:CORPDEPTH coverage in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, with the reservation that this is a type of company (B2B SaaS) where it's almost impossible to meet WP:NCORP because of how they're structurally covered. The enwiki sources are plainly not independent, and I looked through the dewiki sources. All either fail WP:CORPTRIV or WP:CORPIND. Of the ones that are not literally published by the company: 1) Trivial coverage of departure of CEO, 11) Press release, 16-19) Reprint-of-M&A-announcement type coverage, 23/24) Entirely quotes from CEO. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Labs Companies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Labs Companies
• Articles for deletion/Labs Companies (2nd nomination)

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

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

Although obviously not aided by the company's highly generic name, I can't find significant coverage. Jahaza (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Artificial intelligence, Software, United States of America, and California. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete; I likewise can't find anything that suggests the company meets NCORP. Meadowlark (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete; Google search show no any reliable source that talk about the company. Beside that, all the references are are just profile and blog post which they will never establish notability. Another thing I'm wondering is that, how is this article survive nearly one month without moving to draft because it has no single reliable source. ~2026-52109-50 (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom grapesurgeon (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this is the first legitimate nomination, as the nominal first nomination just yesterday, suffice it to say, wasn't (it was tagged by a TA, and the subsequent nomination page was started by a sockfarm seeking to keep the article). No direct opinion…but I'd be surprised if this is kept. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – CB Insights, PrivCo and Dealroom are funding databases, the remaining items are a funding-round brief and the company's own site, so WP:NCORP is not met. Kukuryza (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete Borders on spam. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

UFMOD

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/UFMOD
• Articles for deletion/UFMOD (2nd nomination)

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

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

Clear WP:GNG failure. None of the sources, including those brought up at the previous AFD, are reliable sources that contain significant coverage (more than a brief mention) of uFMOD. I could not find anything better. Merely being mentioned in various projects and user-generated directories does not make it notable. Neither does being "the only XM player written in pure assembly" as was brought up repeatedly in the previous AFD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this article https://nestor.minsk.by/kg/2009/27/kg92710.html It's a printed magazine, the oldest and most reputable one in Belarus. The article mentions that uFmod was the most frequently used module library for xm. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is not significant coverage of uFMOD, it just briefly mentions that it's used to play XM. There is a good case for listing uFMOD under XM (file format)#Supporting media players but it doesn't support a standalone article. (Archive.org link in case other participants have trouble loading the article like I did) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing OS

Nothing OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Nothing_(company). Can't find the WP:SIGCOV needed to justify a seperate page for their Android reskin. Ighs (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge all refs found either discuss the related 'nothing phone' extensively, or are routine product release announcements. no notability independent of the corp.Dialectric (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Dont Merge ~2026-52554-70 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

...what? Is this a !vote for or against merging? Ighs (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Pop PHP Framework

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could not find any independent reliable sources with detailed significant coverage of this framework (that don't just include it in a list). The only thing I found that's anywhere close to sigcov is . Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – seven of the fourteen citations are "top N PHP frameworks" listicles on SEO blogs, and the other seven are GitHub and popphp.org. None of that is independent significant coverage (WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Python Paste

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Python Paste
• Articles for deletion/Python Paste (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Python Paste (3rd nomination)

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

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: see this thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. Amitie 10g (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2010, possibly due to the lower standards of the era, but also seemingly based on identified sources that still aren't in the article 16 years later. The second nomination from 2022 was a procedural follow-up to an IP's PROD (which was invalid because of the first nomination), and ended as "no consensus" for attracting no further participation (owing to the prior AfD and its "keep" consensus). Of note, that IP PROD had more-or-less the same rationale as the current nominator, which may be of note with regard to the AN discussion (the prior link to it was invalid); another IP tried a second PROD with more-or-less the same rationale shortly after that second nomination, which was outright declined without any follow-up. That "no consensus" was not enough to resolve the tag for potential NPRODUCT failure in place since 2021. (No opinion on any of this.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Foresight Linux

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

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Most of the content is unsourced. The only independent sources are about its discontinuation Mdggdj (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: see this thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. Amitie 10g (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

That link does not lead to a valid header; this link to that discussion should work (even after it archives). (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Although the article lacks of independient source, it has a source from Ars Technica. Lack of independient sources can be resolved by finding sources rather than deleting. Amitie 10g (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

That presupposes that such sources exist. Merely implying that they might is not a valid 'keep' rationale. If you wish the article be kept, go find them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about Ars Technica, the source is available at Internet Archive. The cite needs to be updated. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the sources that you implied could be found. Sources, plural, as WP:N specifies. Though even an actual verifiable citation to an archived version of the specific Ars Technica article would be a start, given that you are claiming that it may help demonstrate notability. What exactly is preventing you from providing actual citations? AndyTheGrump (talk)

While we certainly prefer that sources be found over deletion when possible, as sources not currently in the article can contribute to notability, we also prefer that we actually know what those sources are over merely suggesting they exist. (No opinion on whether that is the case here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I've actually taken the time to look for sources, and can't really find anything that would meet WP:N. There are brief reviews, but most do little more than describe the very basics of what is after all just another in a multitude of Linux distro's, with little to distinguish them from their contemporaries. We already have List of Linux distributions, and expanding the entry there (which currently doesn't even cite a source, and fails to give any indication of its release and discontinuation dates) would be far more useful to place it in context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – on the Ars Technica source raised above: it is one entry in that site's 2008 year-end Ovatio Awards round-up, an award blurb rather than coverage of the distribution, and the Softpedia link is a shutdown notice. Everything else is the project's own site, the rPath wiki and a Gmane mailing-list post (WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Ars Technica is good enough as it contains more than WP:100WORDS on the subject and contains independent analysis. There is also additional coverage, some labeled as reviews. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

See the note at the top of WP:100WORDS: This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. An obscure essay only edited by a dozen or so contributors is of no real significance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep -- sources found so far (credit to @Kelob2678) are just so-so:

• Softpedia is basically a blog post
• E-week is substantive but not really sustained
• German article is very brief coverage.
• Ars Technica is brief as well.

I found this praising it as the distro was being discontinued. That plus e-week are enough.

So I don't think it needs to be deleted, but the article may lack some WP:Verifiability and needs an update or needs to be cut back. Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The author of Softpedia's review wrote more than 10,000 pieces on the site, so I think he is well-established enough, even if the style of writing is blog-like. What about Linux.com? They are not independent from Linux, but independent enough from the distro. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Treams

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

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

Redirect to T-matrix method#Software: Fails WP:GNG; the independent sources (not written by Rockstuhl, who developed the software) that mention treams that I could access do not contain significant coverage of the software; they only briefly cite it or just note that it was used in their experiments. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Physics and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I'm not completely sure, if it should stay here or be redirected. I wouldn’t probably mind moving the article to the T-matrix page, while keeping the detailed description of its capabilities, since for users these may be more important than the method itself. Posolubile (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Twimight

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

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

Twitter client with a "disaster mode" feature. The feature could have some notability, but the client itself likely not. IgelRM (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. IgelRM (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – the two conference papers are by Hossmann, Carta and Legendre, who are the app's own developers, so they are not independent of it (WP:ORGIND). The other links are the SCAMPI project page and a Google Play listing, and I can find nothing independent covering the client itself (WP:NSOFT). Kukuryza (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This client is briefly discussed in a few sentences in the related work sections of several independent papers. (, , , ). I'm not sure if this is enough for notability though. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Seamfix

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Seamfix
• Articles for deletion/Seamfix (2nd nomination)

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is funding announcements, partnership notices and anniversary pieces. Kqol • talk 22:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Nigeria. Kqol • talk 22:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep – I strongly believe Seamfix meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:ORG for the following reasons:

Seamfix has won the biggest technology awards in Nigeria ten times within six years. More importantly, the company solved a major crisis that plagued Nigeria's telecommunications sector, MTN $5.2 billion fine, a topic that generated national and international discourse. The company subsequently expanded this solution across the rest of Africa. It was also listed by the London Stock Exchange. This establishes both historical significance and widespread impact.

I started writing this article in 2020 and was only able to finish it in 2025. I am fully committed to improving the article, including removing any inappropriate language and external links. I will continue to add reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Given its direct impact on a critical industry, I am convinced this subject is more than notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. I respectfully ask the community to keep the article. MarkCarey911 (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@MarkCarey911, Seamfix isn't listed on the London Stock Exchange. It appeared in the LSEG "Companies to Inspire Africa 2019" report, which is a list. The awards are Nigeria Technology Awards and MTN's own supplier awards, and the rest is partnership and contract news. Which independent, secondary, reliable sources cover Seamfix in depth? Kqol • talk 21:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kqol like I mentioned elsewhere, tech is a very unique sector, and we cannot compare the awards designed for that industry to the ones designed for the film and music industries. NiTA is the major and oldest one they have. The Guardian covers a bit about Seamfix here. Again, all I'm asking is, let the page be kept and improved. Thank you. Cheers MarkCarey911 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That item has no journalist behind it: the byline is "By: Guardian Nigeria", it walks through the company's own milestones and quotes nobody but the CEO. 21:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC) Kqol • talk 21:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input that does not read as if it were generated by an LLM, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep – Nigeria Tech Awards is the only serious and arguably the biggest technology award in Nigeria, and Seamfix has won it ten times. Nigeria's telecom sector faced a major crisis with the MTN $5.2 billion fine, being the most popular. It became the talk across the continent and even beyond. Seamfix saved the day and even extended it to the rest of Africa. I am continuing my effort and commitment in developing the article. I took my time to create this and have been writing this since 2020, I believe the subject is more than notable enough to be kept. I respectfully ask the community to keep the article. MarkCarey911 (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this is almost certainly the same subject as the first nomination from 2018 that ended in G11 speedy deletion (that does not mean that criterion applies to this iteration). There was an A7 deletion in the past logs, too (but that probably does not apply this time either). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Wcquidditch You mentioned two different items from the past logs that you also mentioned may not apply at this time; the question is, why are you bringing them up and still saying you have no opinion? I need to state that I didn't see the first one that was nominated. I wrote this one and have rewritten this a few times and was given thumbs up by people here. Also, the sources I used were mostly from post-covid years. Let's keep this, please. MarkCarey911 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Comment. If you look at other AfD articles you will see that WCQuidditch does this across the board--they are the keeper of prior AfD information--and regulars know that it really is not a statement of opinion. Don't worry about it. M kuhner (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Upon review, WP:NCORP is not met. The sources are promotional pieces or affiliated sources. The Nigeria Tech Awards are just trade awards (and becoming notable through winning a prestigious award only applies to people, not companies). Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NCORP per above comments. I don't have anything to add. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I can see a lot of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. ~2026-53159-97 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Imaginando

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ADMASQ. This article was erroneously moved from the draftspace by Katoya78 in 2024, mere days after an AfC reviewer had rejected it as non-notable, following previous similar rejections. The article lacks significant coverage of the company itself beyond an WP:INDISCRIMINATE recounting of its products and promotional history. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Companies, Technology, Software, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Portugal. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The sources that may be about the company are paywalled, so it is hard to evaluate them. The reviewer declined the draft because of the product section, but I would say it is quite strong as the products are covered by the third-party outlets (unsure about reliability, however), so in principle, one can argue for the notability of the products based on the reviews. Draftification is fine, but the article is too old, so I am leaning toward deletion. Wikipedia.gptzero.me says that the page is human-written with 100% probability. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was able to reach a few of the product article and there was some substantial coverage. What I can't verify are how independent the tech magazines are that feature them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep I think it scrapes past WP:NCORP. Pollia (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  In what regard? The bare minimum should not be enough to justify its existence without any substantial coverage or evidence, which this article is severely lacking. Most of the article reads like a collection of trivial material, editorialized statements, and over-glorified facts to promote the company and its products, none of which are notable on their own and would be WP:INHERITED notability, which is not how notability is determined for related topics. Nothing demonstrates that the company itself yields any notability independent of its products being made from some notable systems. It all around reads like a press release. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep. In my opinion, we should only re-format the entire article. I agree it's not really that WP:NOTABLE, but I think keeping it will work. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The company appears to have received coverage in third-party publications, including coverage of its products. The current article may need substantial cleanup, better sourcing, and removal of promotional material, but those are editorial issues. The absence of readily available English-language sources does not by itself establish that the company lacks notability, particularly for a Portuguese company where relevant coverage may be in Portuguese.--Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What remains missing from the discussion is clearer evidence that the subject passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Otherwise the nominator's argument is untouched.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: As the nominator, I have seen no arguments in favor of retention that have provided sufficient evidence proving that the company on its own has WP:SUSTAINED independent coverage and long-term notability, and have rather acknowledged the lack of notability from present sources. Giving this article a pass when it doesn't even meet the basic notability criteria is a bad precedent to set, and would essentially endorse and encourage incomplete and irrelevant articles to be created and kept. What is the point in having the notability criteria if we as editors are going to be so selective in its application and the basic fundamental editorial standards? I remain unconvinced by the keep arguments thus far, and do not understand why this promotional stub is being given the easy way out. There are alternatives to deletion, and should any editors feel compelled to salvage this article or prove notability in the long run, that may be done at the draft for incubation, which is where articles with unproven notability unfit for the mainspace encyclopedia are supposed to go first. This one circumvented and bypassed the entire AfC process without establishing notability first; hence this AfD. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Classic proseline spammy company article. It's very telling how all three of the keep !voters above have relatively little experience and how none of them have answered the call to do a source assessment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Looking over most of the sources, they are either press releases, regurgitated interviews with the founder, or coverage of one of the company's products rather than the company itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)