Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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

Purge page cache

watch

Computing

Fidelis Security

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news, press-releases and business annoucements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frutiger Aero

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

This was nominated for deletion by User:Seocwen. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is in good condition, has plenty of sources, and passes GNG. I do not think there's any reason to delete it. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be plenty of sources and I'd like to see how this article develops. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in dispute, see the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources are a bit lower-quality than I'd like, but that's no reason to delete the article. It passes GNG like Di said, exemplified by its mention in The Guardian (even if they did mischaracterize it as a screensaver style). Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass GNG? Make a case if you're going to assert something controversial. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the proportion of keep !votes here, I doubt the claim the article passes GNG is "controversial", but here is my case.

The General Notability Guideline is:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Let's apply it to this article.

When a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article, the subject is assumed to deserve its own article unless editors come to a consensus otherwise. The consensus here in this deletion discussion (as of now) is that Frutiger Aero does deserve its own article.

Significant coverage is...eh, I'll stop restating WP:GNG now. Multiple articles solely about Frutiger Aero are significant coverage.

As for reliable sources, we've got Dazed and Creative Bloq (those are the ones I'm familiar with) which are quite diligent when it comes to the arts, and The Guardian, which is The Guardian. I'm not familiar with the other sources cited, but I trust my fellow editors.

None of these sources created Frutiger Aero (inasmuch that Frutiger Aero can be said to be "created") or named it (that would be CARI), so we can comfortably consider them independent. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Furthermore, a single mention of a fad or trend in a good newspaper like the Guardian does not make something in itself notable. Also, don't trust your fellow editors - if you're getting involved do your job a peer reviewer.

Did you read the Re-Edition article? It is very plainly stated and obvious that the term was created and defined by Sofi Lee, a contributor to CARI - which is just an online community, not a reliable source. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is based on consensus. You are literally the only person who holds your opinion on this article. The consensus seems to be that you're just wrong. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Also it is not a consensus if there is disagreement, by definition. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "fan club". Everyone in this thread is a normal editor. You're just wrong. That is the consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of friendly advice: it may be time to step away for a bit. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Bowler. Di, you can disagree with this editor without resorting to this approach to the conversation — we don't need to go there. Seocwen, for your part, please refrain from making accusations of foul play against your fellow editors and assume good faith. I am not here because I'm part of a "fan club" or "pushing an agenda", but because I believe this article would be an improvement to the encyclopedia if it existed, and I think the same applies to the other participants of this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the number of times I've been reverted, in the entirety, without discussion, and without any consideration of the individual contributions I've made, it feels like a stretch of logic to assume good faith. I'm sorry that's the case, but I can't trust people setting my work on fire and then refusing even to talk about it. I recognize that my language has been unduly harsh at times, but I have not found the atmosphere collegial and that impacts my ability to communicate at my best. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Frutiger Aero is a hoax, perhaps deleting the article is counterproductive. Wikipedia has many articles about hoaxes, which make it abundantly clear that the subject is a hoax, and have reliable sources disproving it. If you have reliable sources disproving Frutiger Aero as a genuine phenomenon, we can rework the article to incorporate this contrary evidence. But simply deleting the article would be counterproductive either way.

On another node, as Di said (a bit indelicately), this seems to be a one-against-many situation. What may help you right now is reading the essay I linked and following its advice. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, if the article does stay, I would strongly advocate for it to be rewritten. I have already attempted to rewrite it to be more accurate, but my edits just get reverted and without discussion. As to evidence - the original authors maintain that their cultural commentator sources are automatically legitimate and the onus is on me to "disprove them with evidence," whereas the cultural commentator source evidence I have provided as a refutation are deemed automatically unacceptable and dismissed out of hand. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the "cultural commentator source" you're referring to is the JJ McCullough YouTube video that you tried to add, it has already been explained that the video is not reliable because it is a user-generated video with no editorial oversight. It's literally just some random guy's opinion. It's quite bizarre that you consider the sources in the article to be "blogs" but you tried to add a video blog. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers a YouTube video published on a personal channel a self-published source and therefore not reliable. If you wish to give sources to back up your claims, make sure that the sources you give are acceptable under Wikipedia's reliable source policy.

Additionally, your comment about what you would do if the article stayed suggests to me that you think the article can be salvaged. In that case, this is definitely not the forum you should take your concerns to. If you wish to keep advocating for deletion however, you should read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG - ie. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Most of the sources cited are fashion blogs dedicated to contemporary aesthetics and qualify as neither reliable nor notable sources. Even the genuine news sources are essentially brief reports on a fad or trend. I think it would probably be enough to place a mention on Microgenre along with the other nostalgia aesthetics, but in any case, the mention on The Windows Aero page is clear and accurate about its relationship to Fruitger Aero. Windows Aero was itself "the design language introduced in the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system." It is a well-established part of the Windows Vista brand. Frutiger Aero is a recent coinage, from 2017, signifying a retrospective look at Windows Aero and similar. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The National, The Guardian, Re-Edition Magazine and Dazed are all blogs? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the Guardian. Please make a real response there. And no, Dazed is not a journal of record. I have personally published magazines of that caliber. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that all the sources are journals of record but that isn't actually the requirement for WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia, that would be editorial oversight. You'll find plenty of magazines of that sort on on WP:RSP. This is the reason blogs, YouTube videos and other WP:SPS are not RS because they are don't have editorial oversight. You'll note that you first claimed that the articles sources were mostly blogs and then when asked to explain how published magazines with an editorial staff was a blog, you switched the question to be about journal[s] of record. So I'll ask again: how are the above listed sources blogs as you originally claimed. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, whether by a group or individual. Whether that group has a name with something like "Research Institute" in it, and whether it produces a print copy does not make it independent or reliable. Many such website exists that amount to little more than cliques. Seems to me that if Peculiar Mormyrid magazine printed a piece criticising the term, it would be immediately rejected regardless of how well-research or articulate it was. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list the sources that you consider to be "fashion blogs"? Di (they-them) (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except the "Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute" (which I assume your alluding to here) isn't cited in the article. Reliable sources are. We fundamentally trust RSs more than editors own judgment (and have for 20 yrs). Of course more reliable sources may come along and change the balance of the articles tone. But again that is not an argument for deletion (I will, for a third time, link WP:NOTCLEANUP in hopes you might click it this time) Please stop having content discussions unrelated to the AFD.

Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, and your evidence that say Dazed, a lifestyle magazine with an editorial team, and whose article isn't listed as an opinion piece fits your definition here? And then maybe do that for all the other articles your out of hand dismissing as blogs here. Many thanks in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the most glaring issues with the article is that it represents descriptor of a history which does not exist. It is misinformation. It in is an invented neologism and concept from 2017. In the 19th Century, colonial scholars invented the notion of an Oriental Style - doing so did not make such a style exist since, the art and culture of Turkey, India, China, Japan, etc., were never "one thing." What we report now is on "Orientalism," - the nonsense in itself. The concept of Frutiger Aero is similarly nonsense because it imputes onto existing and real brand guides of the early 20's a kind of Utopian aesthetic master plan or vision, which is false. You can read real sources about what Windows Aero or Mac Aqua were about. How do you dismiss the evidence of actual design history?

Based on the tone I've received so far in the comments I fully expect you to dismiss this very basic obvious factual evidence as "original research" on my part. To have any reason not to agree would be "original research." The better articles like the Guardian report on Frutiger Aero as a contemporary retrospective aesthetic, not a historical one, but of course, the editors here refuse to abide by that editorial direction because they are pushing an agenda. Fine - if you believe Frutiger Aero is verifiable, explain to me what would prove to you that it represents a mistaken understanding of design history? For my part - show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away. I maintain that it is sufficient to add to the Frutiger Aero section of Windows Aero to note a minor pop culture fad in the present inspired by the operating system. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away" - That's not how it works. You're the one making controversial claims that go against consensus, the burden of proof lies on you. If you think Frutiger Aero is a hoax and does not exist, prove it with reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to stem from a content dispute between Seocwen and Di (they-them), which is not what AFD is for, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. In terms of actual arguments this seems to pass WP:GNG, Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of the article in reliability, notability, and original research is what's in dispute. It is not verifiable. Please address the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the deletion discussion so I expect, as somebody who wants to delete the article, that you will address the claims about sousing and GNG (a question quite separate from what the article says, per WP:NOTCLEANUP) here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could tone down the inaccessible acronyms and jargon for just a second (apologies, they don't teach wikipedia in grad school) what is sousing?

As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, are with presumed and Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "sousing" to be a typo of "sourcing". Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got cut off.

As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, it is noted that coverage must be significant and reliable. That a named online group would publish an individually authored article does not meet the criteria for significance or reliability. Moreover, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". That aesthetics wiki would publish such an article does not mean Wikipedia must. Moreover, it's noted the sources should be secondary sources, not anything like Sofi Lee who made the term up, and the others who are attempting to create, define, and control it. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources in the article are secondary. Sofi Lee did not write or contribute any of them in any way. Just because you don't agree with the term being used doesn't mean that these sources aren't reliable or secondary. As for "indiscriminate information", there is none of that in the article. Everything is backed up by sources and relevant to the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes the general notability guideline and editorial issues such as the reliability of sources can be discussed (and are being discussed) on the talk page, not at AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2, 5 and 6 are RS per Source Highlighter, so we should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, which sources are these? Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, Dazed and Pop. The last two have been evaluated as RS prior to being added to the database in Source Highlighter, so they pass the sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above- sourcing is lower quality than preferred but the subject is generally notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite claims above, precisely zero of the article's sources are 'fashion blogs'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And here's a journal coverage of the concept [1] for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's neat! We should save that for improving the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done; added a further reading section with this paper and another essay. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor.Win32.Seed

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

non notable trojan, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgimo

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

non notable worm, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bohmini.A

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

no non-listical credible RS found on WP:BEFORE. Seems non-notable Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Informatics Olympiad

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

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spindle (disc packaging)

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

Not really notable compared to any other kind of spindle Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Optical disc packaging#Spindles and other bulk packaging ATD, concept is notable but better as part of an existing article more than its own. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
INdifferent Either retain the article or merge it into that other one. (But I wonder, how does the existence of that article harm wikipedia, exactly?) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Either redirect to the optical disc packaging article or retain. It doesn't make sense to combine with any other article on spindles (that kind of organization makes sense on Wiktionary, where wikt:spindle lists it as the 14th sense currently, but not here). --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources and references do exist.

Here are two more:

Cyber Security and Privacy: Key Principles and Tools for Older Adults - Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario (eapon.ca)

https://etalentcanada.ca/for-educators/programs/ictc-knowledge-exchange-hub Emmajp377 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DB2 SQL return codes

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

These were created for ease of reference for people using the IBM Db2 software. Per the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy (see WP:NOT), an article listing the error codes for an arbitrary system is unnecessary. There is almost certainly no coverage of the error codes specifically: have done some minimal WP:BEFORE and nothing showed up obviously; and if there is it can be better put into the main article for the product. Should be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's a manual for this. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Business Technologies

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

Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate advertisements. This is related to Ghias Khan paid-for-spam. IPO of this company didn't happen so WP:LISTED is not applicable. Other than that there are routine press releases or brief coverage in WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. DeploreJames (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @DeploreJames, Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Ghias Ali BLP is paid-for-spam or are these just allegations? Regardless, the focus should be on removing promotional content per WP:ATD rather than seeking deletion. Also, you should notify the page creator @Crosji: on their tp about this AFD. PS. declare your master sock account, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it @Saqib Inbox, plays a significant role in Pakistan's IT sector. However, I've noticed that the article has been gradually shortened over the past few weeks. While changes are healthy, it's clear that anonymous users have removed entire sections, and after suggesting AFD, sourced content has been removed to further weaken it. Given the company's recent media presence (here, here, here and here), I recommend updating the article and ensuring its preservation. Insofar, I would suggest to keep it. @DeploreJames is your account only focusing on Pakistan to delete articles? Crosji (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to sources which you believe meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability? You've pointed to 4 sources but this in Tribune is about the company being warned to pay minimum wage but has no in-depth information about the company, this is in Techjuice which does not appear to meet the criteria for a [[WP:RS|reliable source] as it has no "about" page and may not have any editorial control - in other words it is a type of news blog, this in The News is a mere mention in passing because one of the directors was being written about in a totally different context, and this in the Tribune is a single sentence about a company announcement. "Media presence" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability, rather the content must meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @HighKing I came across this link to an article that discusses a notable aspect of their business, specifically their "web monitoring system"), which is central of this story. This may clarify why it's challenging to find many sources. Additionally, I found another reference, though it's a bit out-dated, that also highlights the company's significance. Crosji (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Crosji, the article in Dawn mentions the 2nd article and paraphrases it without adding anything extra about the company, so as a source in its own right (for the purposes of establishing notability) it can be ignored. Looking then at the article in Coda, it says that the topic company has partnered with a Canadian company to provide a solution to monitor web and call traffic. The article only says that the topic company were licensed to install the Canadian company's technology. It attributes the technology enabling "web monitoring" to the Canadian technology, not that of the topic company. But of more relevance to here, there is insufficient in-depth information provided about the *company* in this article, and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. As to this in The Express Tribune, it is a regurgitated announcement of the company receiving an industry award, the same story carried on the same day in several other publications such as here and here and here. It is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree with @Saqib to avoid WP:Popularage, this article is consistent with WP guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:RS. It also does not fail WP:NCORP as the primary criteria for WP:ORG is “A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Faraz.salim (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Faraz.salim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Welcome back after an absence of 10 years to !vote at this AfD. Can you perhaps point to any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:SIRS. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine funding announcements, leadership changes, republished press releases, etc. all do not count towards WP:NCORP notability. Don't see much in-depth coverage about the company. C F A 💬 17:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]