Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Penteo

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously recommended for deletion in 2021. Still fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Dan arndt (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Software. Dan arndt (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete I moved this to draft on 9 March not realising another editor had already done this on the 8 March, so apologies for that but this has been moved back to mainspace with no improvements: zero citations, references are just 4 external links, length of article is one sentence. I think editors have had ample opportunity to demonstrate notability but have not done so. Orange sticker (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Scriptics

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

None of the sources demonstrates any real notability. One is from a site that explicitly promotes local companies, another is a pandemic-era puff piece and the third is a no-name award handed out to almost two thousand other firms that year.

On a lighter note, the creator is probably a paid editor, but notice how his output is already declining in quality. His first effort, OneHope Wine, was pretty thorough. His next, Gabe Gutierrez, was so-so. This one is already quite skimpy. His next, Draft:Arnifi, is even worse. At this point, he’s just phoning it in. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Romania, Internet, Software, and Companies. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

SmartRecruiters

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion declined on account of this being a subsidiary of SAP, though they own 226 companies so I'm not sure that makes it notable. Many sources marginally reliable and coverage is all WP:ROTM, can't see anything that meets WP:NCORP. Orange sticker (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Orange sticker (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: It would appear that the recreation of the article was itself because, according to the creator of this version, the sale to SAP made it quite notable now. I interpret that as an attempt to claim inherited notability, which isn't going to fly. Even at that, the first nomination's deletion–in 2018, long before SAP even bought the company–was still not unanimous; while the "keeps" back then did not present strong enough arguments, conventional wisdom is that even just being borderline from a notability standpoint probably suggests enough of a credible claim of significance to fend off A7 (and only A7). (No actual opinion on the notability here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Abas ERP

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of the company. The available sources are either self-published or press releases; therefore, it does not meet WP:NCORP. Girdi45 (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. Girdi45 (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep The software has been covered in these two papers . Kelob2678 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per coverages by this paper, this paper, this paper and this paper. --SatnaamIN (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

ScheduleReader

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

Content of article does not show notability, sources are either not independent or reviews on blogs, some information seems hallucinated as does not appear in cited source (e.g....responsibility for ScheduleReader's development passed to Synami, the Malta-based successor company for Seavus's software products division.). Not notable and promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Merge to Synami wouldn't be a bad idea but that page isn't much better. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. Article doesn't show notability, non-notable, refs unreliable.

I also support a merge with Synami. ~~PolishHamster ^yeah 21:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I've fixed the article: corrected Synami successor claim with independent reseller sources, removed promotional tone, now cites only specialist reviews from Ten Six, Plan Academy, Project Schedule Pro, ConsultLeopard. These provide substantive coverage of ScheduleReader as a Primavera P6 XER/XML viewer. Meets WP:GNG/WP:SOFTWARE for niche project management tools. Merge to Synami if borderline.

Sources: - https://tensix.com/what-is-schedulereader-a-full-review/ - https://www.planacademy.com/review-schedulereader-p6-xer-file-viewer/ - https://projectschedulepro.com/software-review-primaverareader-xer-file-reader-project-plans/ - https://consultleopard.com/schedulereader-a-brief-overview/

Thermodynamic computing

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

Page which is essentially an advert for a type of computing being developed by two companies. Much of this article is a fork of simulated annealing with a bit of stochastic computing and quantum annealing thrown in for notability, IMO WP:SYNTH. There has been a few press-release articles recently, but so far this is an unproven concept under development, so fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. If the method takes off then a page can be written. Note: there was a merge suggestion to stochastic computing in November 2025 which was left as a hanging chad. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Mathematics, Physics, Computing, and Software. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:PERNOM Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete as not yet a thing. The term, or ones similar to it, shows up occasionally when discussing what would more properly be called the thermodynamics of computation (e.g., Landauer's principle and related topics). But that's not what this is. As the nominator says, this is an advertisement. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom, could be notable eventually, but right now it seems to be at an early stage in its development. Ajheindel (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete as apparent undercover WP:PROMO. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
holy smokes. it is NOT undercover promo. fyi, i stumbled onto this stuff. and it seemed interesting. okey-doke? anyway, do as you wish, but personally i can honestly say, i just happened onto this topic.

for the record, i am way too simple-minded to have any actual role in this industry, and furthermore, i am devoid of any connections, incentive, material profits or financial or other material reasons to have any mercatile interests in this whatsoever. i am just a random well-meaning guy.

frankly, most of you seem more knowledgable on this topic than myself, so that is why i dont mind yielding to you on this, in truly earnest wikipedian fashion. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Microgaming

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

Fails WP:NCORP, could not find reliable secondary sources about the company, thus failing WP:ORGTRIV. Sources in the article are reprints of corporate expansion announcements and Guinness World Records entries which "should not be used to establish notability" (per WP:GWR). The one potential piece of coverage would be the Global Gaming Awards, but I am unable to find evidence this is a notable award receiving secondary coverage outside of the awarding body and those reprinting its announcements.

Aside: based on the edit history and talk page, I'm guessing this is not a coherent company with a 32-year history as the article describes, but an IP that's been passed between owners. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Leaning Keep- its long term presence in the industry, aside from the global gaming awards, found these sources claiming it being a pioneer as world's first online casino software. 21 ,33, suspecting there would be more if we dig deeper, however also found more recently the company having been acquired by Apricot investments here .Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Neither of those sites have been assessed, so their reliability is not known. 11WB (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This comment got me to look deeper, and there's a decent amount of coverage over the years; I think this is actually fairly significant within the online gambling industry. What I'm struggling with is that mainstream publications don't really write about online gambling, so it's all very low-quality sourcing. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak Delete I thought the mention in the Guiness Book of World Records might warrant a keep but I'm not finding any other significant coverage on them and they fail WP:NCORP Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Cside

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 2 of the given sources are independent, of which the company itself only gets passing mentions. Couldn't find any other sources either. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and California. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:41, 10 March 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.** The nomination fails WP:BEFORE. The nominator has not identified which sources were reviewed, which 2 are considered independent, or demonstrated that cybersecurity trade press (Dark Reading, SC Magazine, SecurityWeek, Help Net Security, The Register) was searched prior to nomination. "Couldn't find any other sources" is not evidence of non-existence, it reflects incomplete research at best.

WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which exists in the client-side security and PCI DSS v4.0.1 compliance space. The company's connection to the British Airways/Magecart breach has generated independently notable third-party coverage. If the article lacks citations, the correct remedy is improvement, not deletion. Nominating without exhausting WP:BEFORE does not meet the bar for AfD.

Please clarify which of the sources are considered independent and which aren't so I can review the accuracy. Sharing 'only 2 of the given sources are independent' is not specific enough. Swagmansonsec (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not sure what connections the company has to the British Airways/Magecart breach you're talking about, it was not mentioned in the article anywhere nor could I find anything other than posts by the CEO here and here. This is still not WP:SIGCOV.

For the record the source analysis table generator wasn't working for me for whatever reason:

References:

https://www.cio.com/video/3952855/c-side-protects-websites-from-third-party-script-attacks-enhances-browser-security.html - Not reliable or independent. It specifically states the source is a marketing outlet.
https://cside.com/about - Company's own page.
https://www.securityweek.com/c-side-emerges-from-stealth-mode-with-1-7-million-investment/ - Not independent, as stated here it is a marketing agency: https://advertise.securityweek.com/info, and has no ethics policy.
https://www.securityweek.com/c-side-raises-6-million-to-secure-the-browser-supply-chain/ - Same as above
https://www.csoonline.com/article/2505496/formerly-legitimate-polyfill-io-domain-abused-to-serve-malicious-code.html - Independent but the subject only has a passing mention.
https://www.scworld.com/brief/campaign-exploits-outdated-wordpress-sites-to-spread-password-stealing-malware - Not reliable, unclear editorial ethics code. Subject does gets a moderate amount of mention in the TechCrunch article it's based on (https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/29/hackers-are-hijacking-wordpress-sites-to-push-windows-and-mac-malware/), and probably the only thing here that comes close to sigcov.
https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-stole-your-tech-job-ai-interviews/ - Reliable, but not sigcov. Again, the company itself only gets a passing mention. This incident has affected many tech companies not just this one.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2025/05/14/ontmaskeringnoordkoreaansecyberoperatie/ - Probably reliable but again, the article barely focuses on the company itself.

External links:

https://www.darkreading.com/cybersecurity-operations/c-side-lands-6m-to-combat-rising-browser-supply-chain-attacks - Not independent, it is tagged as a press release.
https://siliconangle.com/2024/09/16/c-side-raises-6m-prevent-supply-chain-attacks-securing-third-party-scripts/ - Questionable reliability, webpage has some insane puffery and no clear ethics code. The article also comes with AI slop.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/hulu-100k-websites-may-be-exposed-javascript-polyfill-domain-malware - Reliable but company is mentioned in passing.
https://thehackernews.com/2024/06/over-110000-websites-affected-by.html - Only passing mention.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/25/polyfillio_china_crisis/ - Only passing mention.

And please don't use AI to generate arguments in an AfD, or really for any other purpose. SecretSpectre (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, this is really helpful and exactly what was needed to have a productive conversation.

On Baways.com - you're right, there is no independent coverage of their ownership. I know them because of the Baways.com domain as it became a bit of cyber security meme and when I bumped into them again after they released the MSclairty intel I felt it was fair to give them some credit. Noted and fair point. I've left that part out. Companies often do press releases for outlets to rewrite them and release them. I understand your perspective but that does not mean that outlets didn't execute editorial review on them or went through a fact-checking process. These points are easily fixable.

- Keep

Points worth contesting:

The nomination relies on an incomplete source review and mischaracterizes at least one of the sources it does cite.

On the Wired article, I strongly disagree. The piece opens and closes with Simon Wijckmans and cside's security findings. Cside is the central figure of this article throughout. I strongly advice that anyone voting here to actually have a quick read. It is a factually incorrect characterization to call it a 'passing mention'. The Journalist mentioned that he joined calls with cside job applicants. The article is built around the investigation that the journalist executed together with cside.

Your comment regarding the TechCrunch piece as 'probably the only thing here that comes close to sigcov' is an acknowledgement that at least one strong independent source exists. Since the edit further independent security analyst coverage was added. Together with the Wired Article, ESG, Intelyx, TheHackerNews, PCMag, TheRegister, Forbes, VRT and Mediahuis there is plenty of independent coverage.

On SecurityWeek, CIO.com, SCWorld: the existence of an advertising sales page does not disqualify a prublication's editorial content under WP:RS. For example, SecurityWeek, CIO.com, TechRadar and many of the other mentioned publications has bylined reporters and a dedicated editorial staff and is routinely accepted as a reliable source in cybersecurity related AfDs and at WP:RSN. Accepting this categorization would require prior community consensus - and if approved would have impact on many cybersecurity related pages on this platform.

Since the nomination further work has taken place to implement irrefutable independent sources like Forbes, Intellyx, ESG - since part of TechTarget...

It is also worth noting that by definition security threat intelligence mentions the researchers, either by name or by business, in passing as the prime subject is the exposed vulnerability or incident. Sources like TechRadar and BleepingComputer are industry standard independent outlets and will mention the sources by name but the entire article is built on the research that a party provides.

The article clearly has gaps but the article is improvable. The correct approach is citation improvement and further edits to add relevant context. Not deletion. The Forbes recognition, the Wired article, the mentions in TechCrunch, TechRadar provide ample coverage for the notability threshold. WP:IMPROVE is a crucially important policy. By pushing back on new pages based on personal opinions and loose terms like 'barely' and dismissing the basis of a story 'a passing mention' or 'I could not find' you discourage the community to contribute. Please feel free to make edits, but AfD should be kept as a last resort. Try to fix problems or flag them if you can. Be helpful: explain. Perhaps flagging an article for AfD when "the table generator wasn't working" can wait until you can generate a table so that your comments are detailed, actionable and understandable.

No one wants a back and forth. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum but please by all means chime in or provide further feedback to improve the article. Swagmansonsec (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

And sorry for the ugly formatting in this thread - I am still learning what is supported in the AfD format. Swagmansonsec (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wired article tells me very little about the company (called "C.side" in the article) that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This is not significant coverage. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I don't see any sources in the article or on Google that would pass the notability guidelines for corporations. The articles here seem to be mentions without significant coverage, routine coverage, or in trade publications that don't meet the audience requirements. @Swagmansonsec, I suggest you read them and then come back here with your top sources (see the essay WP:THREE) that you feel demonstrate notability. Reviewers here don't want to have to go through ten sources. IF there are good sources let's see a few. I don't think Techcrunch or Wired article provides significant coverage. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I have read the concerns of PacificDepth and SecretSpectre in detail and read their shared guidelines and requirements. PacificDepth, thanks for sharing the WP:THREE guideline, I can see how that makes this an easier conversation. As per your request.

From my understanding and experience WP:SIGCOV requires the subject to be discussed directly and in detail, for which there are many examples.

NRC "Voor je het weet heb je een Noord-koreaan aangenomen als It'er" https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/08/07/sollicitant-frank-chang-zit-helemaal-niet-in-texas-en-spreekt-engels-met-een-koreaans-accent-2-a4902369 Cside and its founder are the central subject in this long form investigative feature which includes a cside organized interview with a North Korean actor where the journalist Marloes De Koning was present. The article goes into detail on the internal operations, the technical methods used to detect them at length. Significant - the subject is addressed at length, cside is the leading figure and in detail. Independent and Reliable NRC is the local equivalent of the NYT in the Netherlands. And it counts as Secondary source meeting all requirements for
Wired “North Korea Stole Your Job” https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-stole-your-tech-job-ai-interviews/ The nomination characterizes this as ‘a passing mention’. That is a factual error. This is a Wired “The Big Story”, their most in depth editorial format, with the founder of cside as the picture. Simon Wijckmans’es name is referenced 19 times, cside once. This is normal, when a CEO of any company is interviewed, the company name may be mentioned 3 times, and the CEO who represents the company plenty more. The company is not a passing mention there either, the same logic applies. In this subject the entire story is built on job applications to cside. Cside is as central here as Wonka in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. The standard of significant coverage is not how often the name of the company is mentioned but instead the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail." which it clearly did. Independent, Reliable, Significant and Secondary source.
“Vlaamse ondernemer ontmaskert Noord-Koreaanse spionageoperatie” - VRT, Belgians national tax-payer funded press equivalent to the BBC but for Flanders. In this piece the dedicated tech and deep research journalist Tim Verheyden focuses on Cside’s discovery of North Korean job applications. Translated "Flemish entrepreneur unmasks North Korean spy operation."

Beyond these three: De Morgen, high quality Belgium’s daily newspaper, De Tijd, most significant Belgian business publisher equivalent to the FT but for Belgium. And on top of that Techcrunch, The Hacker News. I understand that press related to funding rounds is not significant, but that makes a job for WP:IMPROVE, not deletion. Many changes have been made since nomination. Strong Keep. Swagmansonsec (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Two sources out of three above that I can access definitely fail WP:CORPDEPTH. One says (Google Translate), Wijckmans is the founder and director of Cside, a young cyber security company, where twenty people now work. This is definitely not a profile of an organization that we usually keep. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Business size is not a criterion under WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is defined by the quality of independent sourcing, not headcount. This should not be factored into an AfD discussion.

Evidence was shared of non-commerical government funded press outlets, there is no question of legitimacy. Wired especially is a highly trustworthy source with fact checkers etc. ~2026-17021-75 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep -- reviewed mentioned materials. The referenced Wired article clearly states that Cside is a reputable cybersecurity firm. The cited article details its reasons sufficiently. Dj snacks (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: very PROMO, sourced to articles about other things, where this company is only mentioned. No articles that focus on the company, in my search either, only PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep - the statement 'very PROMO' is not substantiated by evidence or links. Please share specific quotes or links. WP:PROMO is resolved by editing, not by deletion. This is not helpful and against guidelines.

Wired, NRC and De Morgen all have cside as their central subject. The existence of some PR material does not discredit other sources. ~2026-17021-75 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of Usenet newsreaders

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Mostly unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

~~Tentative keep~~. These sorts of table based comparisons are fairly common on Wikipedia and this one is not egregious. I think all entries without an article should be removed but I don't see any big problem with it existing. It only summarises what is (or should be) in the articles so I don't see it as OR. Sure, people try to sneak their non-notable software in from time to time but that can be dealt with by removing all entries without their own articles. That said, how on earth is rn (newsreader) not included? Have we no sense of history? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Switching to Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. (Note. I've removed all entries without articles from the comparison so that should address any complaints of non-notable content.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a well-reasoned nomination, and you are free to not participate in this AfD if you think that it is a "big waste of time". Do you have a source that says slrn is "highly extensible using S-Lang scripts (macros)"? Then don't make the claim that this is "not intrinsically OR". HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close this nomination. OP, with ~100 edits, appears to be mass nominating articles for closure as they disagree with another decision. See discussion Greenman (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WP: OR is policy, which is what that essay and the original rationale cite. It is exceptionally poor form to suggest that the nominator has not read what they've cited. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: The WP: POINT stuff is being discussed at ANI -- that discussion can run its course, but for the purposes of determining whether an article should be kept or deleted, behavior on other AfDs is not relevant. WP: DEL-REASON says that we have latitude to delete "any ... content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This article does not have a single source and would need dozens if not hundreds of sources to meet normal sourcing standards. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not opposed to a merge given the discussion below. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge with List of Usenet newsreaders. Both have sourcing problems, and don't serve sufficiently different purposes. We can include a table of technical specs in a list, after all, and that's really all this is. It's nominated for OR, but I see no good argument as to why it's OR. Unsourced != OR, after all. If I had to guess, I'd bet the creator just used various newsreaders' official sites and threw it all in a table. That's not great sourcing, but it's not OR. The question, as ever, is whether there are sufficient sources to justify treating this as a group (WP:NLIST). Comparisons and lists are easy to find on tech websites even now, in 2026, and usenet newsreaders have been written about for quite some time. But I think we'd be working with largely the same set of sources to justify NLIST for both the list and comparison, and, again, I don't see that we need both. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
One simple argument for why this article is OR is that the choice of features to compare newsreaders against is not driven by sourcing. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that compares these specific types of news readers down to whether they support integrated search service retention or the specific license these pieces of software are distributed under. If no source makes a comparison for a specific feature, choosing to do so in an article is usually a violation of WP: OR. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree with this, and agree that Merge is probably the best option. The fact someone chose to include a column for "Price" seems very unencyclopedic and "Integrated search service (retention / $$$/yr)" seems complete WP:OR and possibly promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

But that's a neutrality argument, not an original research argument. When we have a table based entirely on official websites/official stats, it's all verifiable. When one of a set is lifted up above the rest and someone argues that it shouldn't be (such as a feature of software), that's a WP:WEIGHT claim. We make decisions about what bits of data to include all the time. There are all sorts of details about all sorts of subjects that we are ok relying on official and/or primary sources for because of a judgment that those data points are important, even if they're not the most common data points in secondary sources. Book plots, dates, and so on. Whether to include or omit a particular data point seems more sensible to sort out on a case-by-case basis, informed by the literature. But even within secondary sources, to use this page as an example, if every source about Usenet readers mentions its license, but no comparison compares licenses, there's still a good case that it's due weight to include in a comparison given the body of sourcing on the subject of usenet readers, and it doesn't rely on OR at all. I'm not arguing that any particular data point, especially price (which is usually a bad idea, regardless of the subject), should be included -- I just reject the idea that OR is relevant here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree -- I think that if a user forwards a viewpoint not reflected by any known source, it is WP: OR by definition. I won't litigate this though, since I agree that a merge is probably the right thing to do here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unlike the others, there isn't yet a consensus here even disgarding the procedural argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Selective merge into List of Usenet newsreaders per HyperAccelerated and Rhododendrites. मल्ल (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge into List of Usenet newsreaders is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Non-notable entries can be removed and catalog-like columns like pricing data can be removed by ordinary editing. I agree with Rhododendrites--It's good to avoid SYNTH and OR and to prefer secondary sources for verification. But those policies are not a suicide pact, where all content not explicitly stated in secondary sources must be removed. Adding non-controversial basic facts from primary sources is fine, subject to the usual BRD process if the facts do turn out to be controversial. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of FTP server software packages

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~. These sorts of table based comparisons are fairly common on Wikipedia and this one is... OK, it's not a great example. It's confusing as hell. I think it needs rationalising. It only should only summarise what is in the articles so that there is no risk of OR. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. It still needs extensive cleanup though. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close this nomination. OP, with ~100 edits, appears to be mass nominating articles for closure as they disagree with another decision. See discussion Greenman (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. ftp was one of the most used technology on the start of Internet. And this encyclopedic list of ftp servers has great historical value. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete this is complete WP:OR, editors have chosen which characteristics to compare. Sources are meagre and incomplete. Tables contain external links to Github as some of the packages do not have their own articles, so it seems editors have arbitrarily picked which packages are included in the tables, as the they are not exhaustive. Possible alternative to deletion is to covert to a list, removing all unsourced information. Orange sticker (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Per above. This is completely unsourced, and we would basically need to start over to make this content suitable for the encyclopedia; WP: TNT and WP: DEL-REASON#14 apply here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Very poorly sourced original research, unencyclopedic. Concerns regarding nom's behaviour have been discussed at ANI with no consensus that they were being disruptive so those concerns should not impact this AfD. Keep arguments above have failed to engage with the very real issues raised about this article. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of FTP client software

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

~~Tentative keep~~. These sorts of table based comparisons are fairly common on Wikipedia and this one is not egregious. I think all entries without an article should be removed but I don't see any big problem with it existing. It only summarises what is (or should be) in the articles so I don't see it as OR. Sure, people try to sneak their non-notable software in from time to time but that can be dealt with by removing all entries without their own articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of FTP server software packages and the other identical "Comparison of" AfDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software by the same nominator. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Switch to Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. (Note. I've removed all entries without articles from the comparison so that should address any complaints of non-notable content.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close this nomination. OP, with ~100 edits, appears to be mass nominating articles for closure as they disagree with another decision. See discussion Greenman (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. ftp was one of the most used technology on the start of Internet. And this encyclopedic list of ftp clients has great historical value. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: These Keep votes are all total nonsense. Two of them are really just about behavior outside of this AfD and the third is basically just saying that FTP is WP: IMPORTANT, which has no grounding in Wikipedia policy. The choice of how to compare these clients is WP: OR; for example, we compare the clients across their support for about a dozen different protocols. Why compare based on protocol support, and why are we choosing to compare on these specific protocols? This is a choice that an individual editor made, which violates WP: OR. Most if not all of the tables have this problem. Cleaning this article up would amount to a complete rewrite, so WP:DEL-REASON#14 applies, which says that we should delete any content unsuitable for an encyclopedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete agree with all User:HyperAccelerated's points, this is WP:OR and sources only refer to each individual piece of software, not independent comparisons. Orange sticker (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of server-side web frameworks

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Tentative keep~~ There is quite a lot of bad content here to remove but the actual comparison stuff is probably OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Switch to Speedy keep without prejudice to a better reasoned renomination later. This is not intrinsically OR and no other convincing rationale has been offered. Several articles have all been individually nominated with the same insufficient rationale and it is a big waste of time. Best to scrap all these hasty AfDs. (Note. I've removed all entries without articles from the comparison so that should address any complaints of non-notable content.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that this nomination is a "big waste of time" is your opinion, not a valid AfD rationale. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Sourcing needs improving, but versions, release dates, licences, etc. are certainly not OR. Greenman (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The choices of what to compare these libraries on is original research. For example, I am not aware of any source that compares JavaServer Faces and Google Web Toolkit based on what testing, security, caching, or form validation frameworks they use. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Note that the OP, an editor with just over 100 edits, has nominated numerous comparison articles for deletion, and been accused of doing so because they disagree with another nomination. See discussion. User justifies their action with the false claim that 'Wikipedia policy on Comparison articles is that they are not allowed'. Greenman (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please read the link you posted. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

'Keep, for IT, it's important source wit hplenty of sources provided.

Platipusica2 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Almost all of the sources in the article are primary; none of them jump out to me as a secondary source that compares these frameworks, which is what we actually need in order to meet WP: NLIST. So the "plenty of sources" comment above doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. We are not a repository for keeping track of version numbers, release dates, and licenses, per WP: LINKFARM. WP: DEL-REASON says that we should delete any content which is unsuitable for an encyclopedia -- this content is unsuitable, so it should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Juro (company)

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage that wasn't routine business announcements, so this seems to fail WP:CORP. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Fair point on WP:ROUTINE. As the article creator, I knew the coverage leaned heavily on funding rounds (Series B in TechCrunch, City A.M., etc.) and expansion news. I thought the depth of that financial press, combined with the Sunday Times ranking, might just be enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV bar for corporate notability. Happy to defer to the community's consensus on how we weigh these sources against WP:NCORP. JakeNBrav (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion at this time on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

KineMaster

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft delete contested without substantive improvement. Here we go again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, obscure and empty Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This review by TechRadar and this review by Computerworld are enough to Keep this article. Multiple reviews presented to pass WP:NSOFT#3. --SatnaamIN (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep It has many hits in Google Scholar, mostly in Indonesian, example. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
oh, already? delete per the rfd and previous afd. sources do exist as i've shown, but aren't there. if someone's in the mood to improve and actually knows more about this stuff than me, then do that first, because otherwise, we'll just have this stub with technically only one usable source consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The WP:NPOSSIBLE section is titled Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Whether there are zero sources in the article or ten, the notability does not change. Deleting an notable article because it is undersourced is contrary to policy. A stub is perfectly fine and a non-existent article is less likely to be expanded than a short one.

Keep per above significant coverage in reliable sources. Katzrockso (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
sorry for the delay, i fell asleep

this is an argument i don't really get, since it conflates a topic being notable (which this is, i'll be the last person to deny it) with the article content being even remotely presentable (which this isn't), when there's demonstrably no direct relation between them here. it's why returning to red was my argument in rfd and tnt is my argument here, since no one seems to be in the mood to actually improve the article. keeping and leaving as is just means a reader will find that the article exists, get 2.5 sentences of actual info of it (and no actual info about the app itself beyond "video-editing"), and walk away disappointed. and then be wrong about its situation on twitter wait what who said that

i guess if you want a non-essay reason, just go with del-reason #14 lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Additional sources 1, 2, 3. WP:USEDBYOTHERS. --SatnaamIN (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
good catches, they'd make neat additions to the article. this might also be a good time to actually evaluate the stuff i found in the rfd (here), and then maybe consider actually adding any of it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 01:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep. – Gasgas11 ^Talk! ^Watch! 04:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
what consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, I would speedy keep. – Gasgas11 ^Talk! ^Watch! 18:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
why? and maybe a little more importantly, are you aware that no speedy keeping criteria apply here? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet. The speedy keep vote is just a speedy keep that doesn't explain why to speedy keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Draftify. This is a very popular app, however in its current state the article does not convey that. PokémonPerson 16:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Open heritage

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

A neologism; not a coherent topic, but a collection of disparate uses of the term with undue synthesis. Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep I don't blame the nominator for charging this article for incoherence, but it's salvageable given the sources. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You are duped by refbombing. --Altenmann >talk 22:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. A handful of sentences is not much of an article. Surely this concept can be covered elsewhere. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The European Union Open Heritage Platform [https://openheritage.eu] and the Open Heritage Foundation [https://openheritagefoundation.org], sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, do not agree with you Kibrian. Operário Ribeiro (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Not at all; those two cases are a very good example of the incoherence of the topic, as they have quite different aims and objectives despite their similar names. That those two organizations might be notable is distinct from whether the topic is coherent. Klbrain (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete Taking sources about separate topics and combining them based on perceived similarities is the definition of SYNTH and WP:OR. MightyRanger (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
https://openheritagestatement.org/signatories The UNESCO Open Heritage Statement has countless signatories that use this concept daily. Operário Ribeiro (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete original research. --Altenmann >talk 22:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
https://openheritage3d.org/ Please review the article using resources like this wonderful project instead of deleting it, then. Operário Ribeiro (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
You probably have to spend some time and study our policies of WP:NOTABILITY, especially WP:SIGCOV, as well as WP:SYNTH. --Altenmann >talk 21:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, this article is confounding different Open Heritage projects and approaches. As of now, there do not seem enough reliable sources for the Open Heritage 3D project, such as this one. This seems also to be the present state of the Open Heritage Statement supported by Creative Commons and UNESCO. - Should independent secondary sources discuss Open Heritage according to notability and other basic guidelines, a new article could be justified in the future. Munfarid1 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Barcode library

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

The details in the article specifically about barcode software libraries are either poorly-sourced (primary sources related to the specific software libraries examined) or non-sourced. I've not had luck finding secondary sources related to barcode software libraries. Vastly most of the body of the article is details about barcodes broadly, which belong in Barcode, and without the large amount of details about barcodes themselves, the article fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE, mostly listing particular software libraries. Eyesinthefire (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep. While I agree this article is bloated and kind-of a mess, I think there's enough valuable content here to salvage a real article. WidgetKid ^converse 23:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)~~

Delete per lack of cohesive notability, LLM usage (potential dubious sources), etc. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
There's good info, but I haven't been able to find enough reliable secondary sources on any of these libraries to convince me that they're notable in aggregate. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In 2020 (when article was written) there was not any LLM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barcode_library&action=history&offset=&limit=100 Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok, I investigated the history and found that GPT-3 brought out in 2020 (so I was wrong about no LLM) but 100$ for month would have been expensive for me. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is comparable to Comparison_of_optical_character_recognition_software. Similar technical comparison pages are common on Wikipedia and provide structured overviews of existing implementations. A consolidated list of barcode libraries may serve as a useful reference for academic and technical research. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The difference is that almost every entry in Comparison of optical character recognition software has its own Wikipedia article, whereas only one entry in Barcode library has an article (ZBar), and even that has unclear notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The concern I've got is not whether it's important or useful (which I think it is, though this type of article, even the one you linked, comes way too close to being WP:NOTCATALOGUE for me to like having it in Wikipedia, useful as it may be) - as it is it lacks enough secondary sources and in searching I haven't been able to find any, which has me see it as non-notable. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of second sources, you just need to search

Aspose.Barcode

MSDN August 2017 Page 99

https://download.microsoft.com/download/5/8/c/58c4e6cf-c261-4428-9529-9f0f8c2478da/0817msdn_emag.pdf

Barcode Writer in Pure PostScript is mentioned in

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1584678/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Barcode4J is mentioned

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1355284.1355287

https://coe.psu.ac.th/ad/jg/javaArt7/watermark.pdf

https://www.ikoffice.de/downloads/jasperreports_ultimate_guide_3_pdf_16206.pdf

ByteScout BarCode SDK is mentioned

https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/17094/1/alamrani_m_210719.pdf Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of those articles are based in a different, non-barcode topic and only discuss barcode software libraries in their methods section. The video watermarking one is about barcodes broadly and only talks about software libraries in implementation, not in the actual subject of the article. I don't think any of them would be suitable to cite in an article about barcode libraries. Eyesinthefire (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Aspose.Barcode in MSDN August 2017 Page 99 is fully about Aspose.Barcode

Barcode4J is described in many technical blogs

https://www.baeldung.com/java-generating-barcodes-qr-codes

https://www.vw-software.com/java-barcode-library/

https://www.sitepoint.com/generate-barcodes-with-jruby-and-barcodes4j/

https://infosys.ars.usda.gov/svn/code/third_party/Jasper_Reports/jasperreports-4.6.0-project/jasperreports-4.6.0/dist/docs/sample.reference/barcode4j/index.html

https://javaavabodhaka.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/barcode4j-hello-word-exampleusing-javabean-api/ Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not reliable sources, and the page in MSDN is an advertisement. The only sources that are not completely unreliable (but I would hesitate to call reliable) are the self-published JasperReports guide and a low-quality baeldung.com tutorial, both of which just summarize technical details of specific barcode software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I can create local sandbox with raw links to every library and Eyesinthefire will sort and select possible reliable. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into that if we reach a consensus to keep the page. Eyesinthefire (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

However, including a link to Barcode library in the Software section section of the main Barcode article is appropriate, as software libraries form a distinct and relevant aspect of barcode technology implementation.

I agree that Barcode library needs improvement, but I don’t have time at the moment to revise it, as I’m currently a postgraduate student working in barcode technologies. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to DNA barcoding#Reference libraries as the most common usage of "barcode library". There is practically no WP:GNG sourcing here that supports an article about barcode software libraries; the best sources are scholarly papers that introduce barcode recognition algorithms, slightly different from the intended scope of this article, and even those are primary sources. Maybe we could have an article about barcode recognition but it would look very different from this article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. DNA barcoding is only 0.1% from barcode technology usage. However renaming Barcode library to Barcode SDK is appropriate. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think a fundamental problem with this article, on top of the sourcing and content issues, is that it combines barcode generation with barcode recognition, when most sources either deal with one or the other. It's like if we combined the barcode reader and barcode printer articles into a single article titled "barcode machine". Barcode recognition software/algorithms can probably have its own article, but barcode generation software (which this article focuses on more) has less clear notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Around 50% of libraries from the list support generation and recognition in the same time. So they are combined barcode multi-tool. And it is original view of barcode systems (software separated from hardware). Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable independent sources choose to discuss. It doesn't matter that some software is multipurpose if independent sources don't discuss their multipurpose capabilities. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Not certain about that redirect. I think the most common association for the phrase "barcode library" is software libraries. Web searches seem to reflect that. (though may lean into software development meanings of things more than common usage...). Perhaps a redirect to Barcode? Barcode#Software is unsourced... Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Barcode article is already overloaded and any addition to Barcode#Software section makes article overfilled Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Improve.

— Duplicate !vote: Alexandr.gavriluk (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

The topic appears to meet WP:GNG, as barcode libraries are widely used components in barcode software ecosystems and are discussed in technical literature and industry documentation. They form the core software layer used in systems related to Barcode printer and Barcode reader technologies, which are already well-established encyclopedic topics.

The current article indeed needs improvement, particularly regarding sourcing and structure, but this is an issue of WP:IMPROVE rather than deletion. Wikipedia policy generally favors improving articles when the subject itself is notable and verifiable.

I have previously contributed to several related articles about barcode technologies, but improving this article would benefit from collaboration with other editors, especially to add independent reliable sources in line with WP:RS.

Therefore, the appropriate course of action would be to keep and improve the article rather than delete it. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alexandr.gavriluk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

You're only allowed to make a bolded vote once. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, did you use AI to write this comment? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I use AI to improve stylistic of the text. At this time it is allowed even in science articles. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

and are discussed in technical literature and industry documentation - Over a couple separate tries at finding in-depth, reliable sources, I haven't been able to find any.

They form the core software layer used in systems related to Barcode printer and Barcode reader technologies, which are already well-established encyclopedic topics. - this does not establish notability.

I'd also appreciate you not using LLMs to generate comments in this discussion. I don't want to have to guess what points you're making and what the AI is trying to synthesize. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

As an example peer-review articles

Zxing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256295515_FROM_LOCAL_DATA_TO_GLOBAL_INFORMATION_USING_ZXING_LIBRARY_IN_ANDROID

Zbar(Pyzbar)

https://tech.vernadskyjournals.in.ua/journals/2024/6_2024/part_2/11.pdf

Barcode SDK/API

https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol97No8/10Vol97No8.pdf Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

All of these are about barcode recognition, proving my point above. This article is for the most part not about barcode recognition. I am also skeptical about the quality of these research papers (e.g. JATIT was on Beall's List). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

If article reviews barcode recognition with referenced software/library, is this article about software/library or barcode recognition? As an example, article about Microsoft Word usage for text processing, is this article about Microsoft Word or text processing? Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is too much noise and not enough discussion of gng sources. Can we focus on the best 2 or 3 only and establish if they meet gng and rs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Alexandr.gavriluk could you collect WP:THREE? Eyesinthefire (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Predatory source, and the article has limited scientific value; however, it can still be considered a useful technical review:

https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol97No8/10Vol97No8.pdf

Review of QR code reading using different barcode libraries:

https://openreview.net/pdf/35f764c743a308c83300dd6f22e58b8838c4715c.pdf

Technical review and comparison of 12 barcode libraries:

https://hackernoon.com/c-barcode-library-in-depth-comparison-ranked-by-use-case

Additional sources:

Comparison of barcode scanning software solutions:

https://dev.to/patty-1984/2025-the-best-barcode-scanners-for-your-app-30hk

Comparison of ZXing and ZBar with alternative barcode recognition approaches:

https://www.scitepress.org/papers/2017/65082/65082.pdf Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's my assessment of these sources:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol97No8/10Vol97No8.pdf		The paper was published to a research journal on Beall's List	The paper focuses mostly on user-facing barcode software. It has a very brief table in section 5 detailing different barcode libraries, all weirdly sourced (e.g. info on each library is sourced to papers that used that library in their methods.	✘ No
https://openreview.net/pdf/35f764c743a308c83300dd6f22e58b8838c4715c.pdf		The preprint was rejected for inclusion at ICLR 2025 per https://openreview.net/forum?id=AfZH9EEuRR	The article discusses a novel method for QR code decoding and does not describe integration of the method into software as a library or discuss barcode software libraries	✘ No
https://hackernoon.com/c-barcode-library-in-depth-comparison-ranked-by-use-case	The article is self-published and authored by Iron Software, a vendor for the top pick of the ranked list.	The article is self-published by a barcode software vendor. That may qualify them to speak on other barcode libraries, unsure.	The article details many different barcode software libraries, their uses, and their traits	✘ No
https://dev.to/patty-1984/2025-the-best-barcode-scanners-for-your-app-30hk	The article is self published. Some of the tone around the commercial offerings feels promotional.	The article is self-published and has a completely unknown author	The article details and compares several different barcode software libraries.	? Unknown
https://www.scitepress.org/papers/2017/65082/65082.pdf		This is a ripped preprint but appears to have been accepted and presented at IJCACI	~ The article details a novel barcode scanning method and tests it against ZXing. I'm not certain whether it's discussion on barcode libraries is significant enough.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I don't think any of these change my view that barcode libraries do not meet WP:GNG Eyesinthefire (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, you can delete if you want. I'll rework this text into couple articles for technical blogs. Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Software

Penteo

Scriptics

SmartRecruiters

Abas ERP

ScheduleReader

Thermodynamic computing

Microgaming

Cside

Comparison of Usenet newsreaders

Comparison of FTP server software packages

Comparison of FTP client software

Comparison of server-side web frameworks

Juro (company)

KineMaster

Open heritage

Barcode library

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Related Articles

Related Articles

https://www.csoonline.com/article/2505496/formerly-legitimate-polyfill-io-domain-abused-to-serve-malicious-code.html

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1355284.1355287

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256295515_FROM_LOCAL_DATA_TO_GLOBAL_INFORMATION_USING_ZXING_LIBRARY_IN_ANDROID