Comparison of civic technology platforms

Comparison of civic technology platforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In this discussion, I held up Comparison of civic technology platforms as an example of an article hich uses features such as version numbering to compare products, which no independent sourcce would ever do. Many articles fitting this form are inappropriate as comparisons, but work fine as lists; this one would still be problematic if moved. For example, its scope listed under "Platform types" is much too large, and the classification of "platform type" in the table is very subjective. Many entries are non-notable, and, more worryingly, all of the listed sources only compare platforms under one category. If split into seperate categories, there aren't enough entries to justify seperate lists, but there is no group notability either. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Even if renamed as a list or otherwise reorganized, these platforms/applications are wildly different and don't make sense to list together like this. I don't understand why one would compare or even just collate these in this way; this concept is not well defined. Reywas92^Talk 04:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree.com

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NCORP, typical WP:SERIESA sources of raising capital. Source added in response to PROD was , which fails the WP:CORPIND bar. The Jerusalem Post article clearly bases its information about the company from statements by the company, repeatedly stating: according to company statements, The company said early users include startups, small businesses and independent professionals ~ A412 ^talk! 15:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

EPAM Systems

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

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

Publically listed company article fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Refs are press and routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Software, Belarus, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the last nomination from 2021 was quickly withdrawn by the then-nominator on the grounds that they had not seen the two prior nominations from 2007 and 2012. But those nominations ended as "keep" at a time of lower standards, and are not indicative of whether the standards–or consensus–of 2026 would go the same way. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'll also note that this was recently blanked and redirected to MACH Alliance not too long before that was deleted at AfD, which led to this being G8 deleted, which was then refunded back to the article, thereby putting it back on the NPP radar and thus on the road to renomination. It may also be of note that the refund was requested by a paid editor who also specifically requested draftification (which for such an old article is generally considered to require an AfD first anyway); I have no opinion on that, either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm of a few minds here; I find the entirety of the sources in the history section lacking for the reasons that you mentioned, scope creep. But also, the Ukraine war section has two particularly in-depth sources, the Forbes and Bloomberg article, which seem to demonstrate notability per WP:SUBSTANTIAL, at least on that specific issue.

I will say that it looks like the page has been the subject of some mostly single-purpose, AI activity, and the article for the current CEO got the same treatment, Arkadiy Dobkin, where that user, Rada2262, declared a COI but listed no details. This page itself has gotten the WP:TNT treatment to remove all of the crap, but I honestly am in favor of a weak delete here. Yojo98 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment for now: this is almost certainly notable. Sure, WP:LISTED, but S&P 500 component is another level of "sources obviously exist". ~ A412 ^talk! 16:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Dude, I know about WP:LISTED, but the reference must pass WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS and WP:V. We dont take dross simply because its listed. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think about the way my comment is written, I clearly cited WP:LISTED because it's not automatically notable. I'm nevertheless asserting "there's no way there aren't a plethora of analyst sources for an S&P 500 component". ~ A412 ^talk! 18:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There is long consensus for that. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's a chapter about the history and corporate strategy of EPAM. (you can access via WP:TWL) ~ A412 ^talk! 18:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Lingokids

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

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

Fails WP:SIRS. All of the sources used here are routine coverage of funding and partnership. Rht bd (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Software, and Spain. Rht bd (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is clearly established. The article cites coverage from TechCrunch, EdSurge, Business Wire, GlobeNewswire, Kidscreen, and Bullhound Capital documenting $186M in funding across multiple rounds over 11 years. Beyond funding coverage, Lingokids has been named one of TIME Magazine's World's Top EdTech Companies (2024) based on a Statista analysis of over 7,000 companies, won the Kidscreen Best Original Learning App award two consecutive years (2022–2023), won the EdTech Breakthrough Language Learning App of the Year (2023), and maintains active partnerships with NASA, BBC Earth, Oxford University Press and UNICEF. The platform serves over 200 million families across 190 countries. This goes well beyond routine funding coverage. AdriSoft (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AdriSoft (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• Keep : The article is far from being decent, however there are sources for establishing notability. This also appears to be good enough. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment : The article has been significantly expanded with more sources since it was nominated for deletion. Rht bd (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Stephen Crow

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

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

Little notability beyond two awards. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Software, and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG, as I can't find any coverage of him. I guess one could make an argument that "programmer of the year at the 1985 Golden Joystick Awards" constitutes "a well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO; but I would not. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE: "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Author or lead artist of several notable video games, Starquake, Firelord, Wizard's Lair, Zynaps, Earthworm Jim, Earthworm Jim 2, Skullmonkeys. Enough sources exist to write an article. --Mika1h (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I added sources to the article, including this Tilt profile: and Retro Gamer article: . --Mika1h (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Fleetio

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

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

Based on minor coverage and self published sources. Rht bd (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Rht bd (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The article now includes independent editorial coverage from AL.com (Alabama's largest news outlet, byline William Thornton), Birmingham Business Journal (multiple articles with named journalists), TechCrunch, Crunchbase News, and Hypepotamus. These are not self-published sources. AdriSoft (talk) 14:59, 17 May 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 - Fleetio is a notable software company that achieved unicorn status with a $1.5 billion valuation in March 2025, as covered by independent sources including PYMNTS, Waste Today Magazine, and Globe Newswire. The company has a strategic partnership with Ford's commercial division, Ford Pro, whose fleet management software is built on Fleetio's platform. The $454 million Series D round was co-led by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, further demonstrating its significance. These are independent, reliable secondary sources that go well beyond minor coverage. AdriSoft (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AdriSoft (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• WP:NCORP says: Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. Can you point at a source that actually discusses the company in detail? Sources that just state the valuation, partnership, or stock offering are not enough. M kuhner (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  The Birmingham Business Journal has covered Fleetio across multiple years: including a profile in their 2024 Inno Fire Awards, the CEO transition in 2023, and executive appointments in 2025. AL.com reporter William Thornton also wrote about the company in depth when it reached unicorn status. These go well beyond funding announcements. AdriSoft (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete None of the sources meet WP:SIRS. Likely AI generated per AISIGNS and the LLM-generated comment by the article creator above. Jumpytoo Talk 02:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete A company must meet WP:ORG. None of the sources are eligible, all are PR driven. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Searching for sources on the subject brings up no independent sources. There is no coverage of this company's activities that does not come from a connected source or is trivial information; e.g., the company's partnerships with 23XI or Ultimark. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Since this nomination, independent coverage has been added from AL.com (Alabama's largest news outlet), Birmingham Business Journal, TechCrunch, and Crunchbase News - none of which are connected to the company. AdriSoft (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I have substantially improved this article with independent sources including TechCrunch, Crunchbase News, Automotive Fleet magazine and the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 ranking. The article now demonstrates clear notability beyond funding announcements. AdriSoft (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AdriSoft (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Guardsquare

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

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

The article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the company's notability. The content is also promotional Hopkinkse (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete nothing about this company or its products is notable, coverage is all WP:CORPTRIV. Orange sticker (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't really meet WP:NCORP criteria - not enough sources even after BEFORE that provide WP:CORPDEPTH netstars22 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

JFrog Ltd.

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

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

Previously deleted and salted as JFrog. No evidence of notability - sources are all WP:ORGTRIV * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Contrary to the claim that there's "no evidence of notability" for JFrog Ltd., I want to point out that there's plenty of evidence that prove, without a doubt, the notability of JFrog. (e.g. Forbes: "JFrog, a leader in DevOps and DevSecOps solutions"1), Qumra Capital: "award-winning" 2) The company was featured on Forbes "Cloud 100" list and "Bet Mid-Cap Companies" and Inc Magazine's list of fastest-growing private companies in America. Therefore, the article meets WP:COMPANY. I've added references to strengthen my claim. --Omer Toledano (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Source 1: WP:FORBESCON. Source 2: Consists primarily of quotes from the company and hence lacks independent content. Forbes Cloud 100 list: lacks any in-depth coverage. Inc Magazine page: being 581st on a list is really trivial and there's no in-depth coverage there. Wikipedia notability for companies isn't established by awards, it's established by in-depth, independent coverage which is lacking here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Since 2008, JFrog has continuously been covered in-depth by multiple 3rd party sources beyond mere mention. These include Globes, Calcalist, NBC, Yahoo Finance, Barron's, Market Beat, MSN, and more. Needless to say that JFrog is a multi-billion dollar publicly-traded company. With that said, the company does meet WP:COMPANY, without a shadow of a doubt. Please keep. --Omer Toledano (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Globes article is about the company's shares, which by WP:NCORP "Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant." (emphasis added)
• Calcalist article falls under WP:CORPTRIV as a routine transaction.
• NBC coverage did not give any indication as to the significance of the company's regular products/actions
• Yahoo Finance falls under the same category as Globes
• Barron's is paywalled but it seems to fall under the same category as well
• Market Beat is the same thing as Globes
• MSN is the same thing

SecretSpectre (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That, while seemingly 'dry data' and statistics, does not disprove notability. If you've noticed, I've expanded on the company's history and activities. I call to keep the article. --Omer Toledano (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SecretSpectre: Globes is more WP:ORGTRIV (standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: [...] of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts). Ditto for Calcalist. Yahoo Finance isn't quite the same category as Globes in my book, but I would say it lacks depth as all it actually says about the company is some financial statistics. I also can't access Barron's but from the header it is likely the same. Market Beat is a mix of trivial financial coverage and a description of the company that again lacks sufficient depth. And likewise with MSN - more trivial financial coverage that is not in-depth. I feel like I'm being gish galloped here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as passing NCORP. This is a mature Israeli company by now with plenty of CORPDEPTH coverage. Move to JFrog. gidonb (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Ollama

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

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

A tool with no sign of notability. The article lists some unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChippyTechGH (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChippyTechGH What did you find in your search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating? —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and Software. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, based on the combination of the lack of sources here and the rejection of Draft:Ollama. No objections if this is merged into the draft there for draftification. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes when I did a google search for it I couldn't find any reliable sources from places like NYT or Reuters. ChippyTechGH (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Archy (dental software)

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

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

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT. All of the sources are textbook WP:ORGTRIV announcements of funding. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, sources are solely routine coverage of raising capital, fails WP:NCORP. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another inane WP:SERIESA article about VC trying to revolutionize dental billing, as if that does somehow need saving for some reason. Nathannah • 📮 18:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Medicine, and Artificial intelligence. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify (article creator). Reviewing the discussion, I think the nominator is right that the current references are dominated by funding-round coverage that doesn't clear WP:ORGTRIV, and the strongest available candidates outside the article (e.g., Crunchbase News) are deprecated per WP:RSP. Rather than outright deletion I'd ask the closer to draftify so the article can be rebuilt at AfC if and when independent non-funding coverage that meets WP:NCORP develops. Phoenix-rising99 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Deliverect

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Moved to mainspace with the rationale "in-depth coverage in Spain and The Netherland's newspapers of national record, Forbes and a feature in The Grocer", but none of the sources meet the WP:CORPIND standard. Forbes Spain explicitly says it is based on a press release, The Caterer says "Sponsored by Deliverect", The Grocer is a press release (original via PRNewswire: ), and El Pais is an announcement of raising capital as per WP:CORPTRIV. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I was going to bring this nomination up but you beat me to it, A412. I was hesitant because the editor who moved it to mainspace has previously produced some well-researched articles. I have to agree that unless there are other independent sources found that describe the company in depth—Forbes Spain, The Grocer and The Caterer articles used here do not meet this standard—I lean delete. I believe the use of The Caterer to show when the company was established is appropriate, though, since it's an uncontroversial statement. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

DomoAI

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

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

Can't find sources that demonstrate notability for WP:NCORP from my own WP:BEFORE. All sources in article are press releases and sponsored posts. Santa Saana (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, Internet, and Software. Santa Saana (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Recommend deletion per WP:GNG.--Alfacnno (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Advertorial? Kurgenera (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete Not meet WP:GNG. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 15:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 13:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Birbank

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

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

I propose merging to Kapital Bank because it is not doing anything unique other than being the bank's mobile application for transactions. This article only seeks to promote the app Santa Saana (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and Azerbaijan. Santa Saana (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Strata Identity

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. All sources are WP:CORPTRIV or not from reliable sources. I started a source assessment table; I can't see that any of the other sources are any better. Lijil (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Lijil (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I can't seem to format the SA table properly. Sorry... Leaving the malformed code here.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Lijil

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1807750D:US?embedded-checkout=true			See WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES	✘ No
https://www.eweek.com/cloud/how-strata-brings-distributed-identity-to-a-multi-cloud-enterprise/	EWeek claims that its articles are editorially independent but the article reads like a press release with no independent evaluation or contrasting viewpoints.	EWeek used to be PCWeek but is now owned by a marketing company. I asked for opinions on the magazine at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#EWeek	WP:CORPTRIVIAL	✘ No
https://www.builtincolorado.com/articles/strata-identity-raises-26m-hiring	Press release, lightly edited from https://www.strata.io/resources/news/series-b-financing/	Typical business promo website	WP:CORPTRIVIAL	✘ No
https://www.darkreading.com/cloud-security/strata-identity-raises-11m-in-series-a-round			WP:CORPTRIVIAL	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The Audience Engine

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

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

This is an article about a proposed product that never actually came into existence. I fail to see why we need an article on something of this nature. Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Finance, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nomination. This obscure would-be product never came to fruition, so how is it notable? No reason why is given in the article. TH1980 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to WFMU. Information is sourced; product is apparently in use by WFMU. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi! the notable thing that came out of this project is Spinitron! Spinitron is the underpinnings of the playlist system on hundreds of non commercial stations in the US, far more than just WFMU where it originated. It is a pretty important thing for both stations and listeners. My view is it ultimately deserves a page of its own and I had even been contemplating a larger scale project linking participating station wikipedia pages to their spinitron playlists as that's much more practical and informative than the Nielsen Audio db to most. Earlier this year on the talk page I posted something similar: what's important in this page should be put on a updated page about Spinitron. Happy to help make that happen in some way! Postres (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Post processor

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

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

I couldn't find many good citations for this article; most of the sources only cover the software in passing or don't describe how it works. Also, judging from the sources I could find, it seems to be just another piece of software in the processing scheme of a CNC machine. 7amithorn me - talk 00:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  oh was I supposed to do that when I made the AfD? sorry 7amithorn me - talk 03:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment What about these sources?
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20110519182051/http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/notes-on-posts
  • https://www.mlc-cad.com/resources/mastercam/what-is-a-post-processor/

Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Those might work, I hadn't seen them when I did my search. Let me see what I can do with the article with them. 7amithorn me - talk 01:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have re-written the article based on new sources; I think it probably passes muster on that area now (though I'd like if someone looked at the sources); it might still be not notable enough. BUT I'm much less confident that it needs to be deleted now. 7amithorn me - talk 02:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort! If it is of interest, I found those sources by setting date ranges, i.e. only looking at results that are from before 2022 (because LLMs weren't really a thing then, so there is far less listicle spam), and/or by adding a compulsory "magazine" term to the search (because trade magazines are often good sources for this kind of thing). CommonsKiwi (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Javier Loureiro

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

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

No notabilíty. All the references seem to be paid press releases on minor blogs and newspapers. I could not find any mention of this person on reliable newspapers or magazines in Spanish. JohnMizuki (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Software, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Keep I respectfully but firmly disagree with the preceding Delete !vote on several grounds:

  Regarding La Voz de Galicia: yes, the piece is structured as an interview, but interviews conducted and published by established newspapers are widely accepted as reliable sourcing under WP:RS, particularly when used to establish early biographical facts. WP:SIGCOV does not preclude interview-based sources, it just requires that coverage should be substantive, which this article is.

  Regarding El Español: the article is explicitly about the startup that Loureiro co-founded and how he did it. It would be unreasonable to expect a co-founder's name to appear repeatedly throughout a piece that discusses the business as a whole rather than serving as a personal profile. The subject's involvement is the very premise of the coverage.

  Regarding El Confidencial Digital and Listín Diario: these do not read as press releases to anyone with a working knowledge of Spanish. I would caution that assessments based on machine translation are inherently unreliable. These appear to be genuine editorial pieces published in the business and entrepreneurship sections of their respective outlets, sections where reporting on startup valuations and product launches is entirely standard.

  Regarding Qué!: while the piece is not primarily about Loureiro, it provides meaningful contextual coverage of Nexbi and his participation in it. Not every source cited in a Wikipedia article needs to be entirely devoted to the subject. This is a good supplementary reference to establish context and corroborate specific claims and it can serve as a legitimate encyclopedic function as recognized under WP:PSTS.

  The remaining references, while individually less significant, collectively contribute additional verified details Dennispruess (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  You’ve forgotten that sources need to be reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Sources which do not meet all three of the conditions do not count towards notability. Interviews are not independent of the subject, and the other two sources that you discussed are essentially trivial mentions of the subject. It doesn’t matter whether or not the sources are press releases or have been machine translated; they clearly do not count towards notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. The sources collectively provide sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. If every source in the article was an interview, I would concede that wouldn't be enough to meet the minimum but that is not the situation. Having one interview-based source to establish basic biographical background is an entirely acceptable practice. The remaining principal sources cover the subject directly, It is not a reasonable standard to expect a subject's name to appear repeatedly throughout every cited article Dennispruess (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  That’s not how this works. Every source counting towards notability must be {reliable, independent, provide significant coverage}. It is not enough to say that a subject is notable because we have a patchwork of sources that each meet one or two of the criteria. You are free to think that this is “not a reasonable standard”, but that is your opinion, not a legitimate interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  My argument is not that a patchwork of sources each meeting only one or two criteria is sufficient. My position is that the principal sources each independently satisfy all three requirements. I acknowledge that some of the secondary references in the article carry less weight and may not individually clear all three bars, but those are supplementary citations. Thanks Dennispruess (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Clearly relevant and non-paid references in some of the most important news papers in Spain such as El Español, La Voz de Galicia, El Confidencial Digital; and Listín Diario, the main newspaper of the Dominican Republic.

https://www.elespanol.com/quincemil/economia/tecnologia/20260419/startup-gallega-trovald-busca-recortar-gasto-empresarial-ia-pagar-taxi-premium-ir-esquina/1003744209842_0.html

https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/ferrol/2025/12/07/11-anos-cree-blog-mates-ayudar-companeros-clase/0003_202512F7C12_COPY994.htm

https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/negocio/javier-loureiro-pedro-ansio-lanzan-facturame-herramienta-integral-verifactu-contabilidad-pymes-autonomos/20251104151106987484.html

https://listindiario.com/economia/emprendimientos/20251216/javier-loureiro-impulsa-evolucion-dinogoal-valoracion-400-000_830811.html TechnoESP (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TechnoESP (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems today you were blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia, and your articles there (which are the Spanish versions of the ones you published in English) have been deleted. JohnMizuki (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You're wrong, I was blocked on the spanish Wikipedia in late 2025, and even though some of my articles were translations of those I created on the english wikipedia, they were mostly different. However, it's not recommended to use arguments such as WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or WP:OTHERSTUFF since other Wikipedias may have different rules and different inclusion criteria. TechnoESP (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep It looks like the nominator is trying to apply other wikiproject's rules to the english wikipedia. About the press references, some of the additional ones in the article are weaker, but the threshold under WP:GNG requires only that reliable independent sources exist, not that every citation in the article be of equal quality. There's at least 4 or 5 good sources that are sufficient to meet that threshold. Mecahammer (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep I would strongly disagree with the assertion that these sources are paid press and let alone minor blogs/newspapers, they all appear to have adequate editorial oversight. Furthermore as mentioned in the discussion, WP:OTHERLANGS is not a valid reason for creating or deleting an article. ConductorDeAutobus (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep The nomination states they “could not find any mention of this person on reliable newspapers or magazines in Spanish”, yet the article already contains references to La Voz de Galicia , El Español , El Confidencial Digital , Listín Diario , Qué! , and some others. This suggests WP:BEFORE was not adequately completed prior to nomination. The article may have weaknesses worth addressing through editing, but those are reasons to improve, not delete as per WP:IMPERFECT. Tiknova (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I'm not seeing enough sourcing here. I'm not an expert on the reliability of Spanish news sources, but all the sources either have a non-neutral tone or do not meet the standard for significant coverage, so this question isn't really relevant to my !vote. I looked through the sources in this AfD and in the article. I also did a WP: BEFORE and couldn't find anything useful.

La Voz de Galicia reads more like an interview of the subject -- it's difficult to make a claim that a source is independent if many of the claims in the article are quotations from the subject themselves.

El Espanol is about the startup that Loureiro co-founded. His name is mentioned maybe once or twice in the article, so it's an uphill battle to say that there's WP: SIGCOV. This source makes heavy use of quotations from an interview with the subject, so I'm also hesitant to claim the source is independent.

El Confidencial Digital reads like a press release about Loureiro's startup. Loureiro is quoted once and mentioned once; this does not qualify for WP: SIGCOV. It also describes how the startup creates software that (according to machine translation) can create "invoices in seconds" and its mission to "to democratize access to digital accounting through an intuitive and accessible interface". These read like punch lines taken from a company website, not from a neutral, uninvolved journalist.

Listín Diario is a press release about the valuation of one of his startups. This wouldn't even qualify for notability for an article about his startup, since it's routine coverage, but little about Loureiro is mentioned besides that he founded the startup and is actively working on it. This is plainly insufficient to build an article on.

Que!, Merca2, and one of the El Muno Financiero sources are about another programmer named Iván González Barrasa -- Loureiro is mentioned once in the article. This is not WP: SIGCOV. The other El Muno Financiero source is about a startup that the two cofounded; Loureiro is mentioned only once.

Emprendimiento is an interview with the subject -- not independent.

El Referente does not even mention the subject -- not WP: SIGCOV.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input, after the source analysis presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Having reviewed the discussion, I found these sources to provide WP:SIGCOV and they're sufficient to meet WP:GNG: El Español, El Confidencial Digital, Listín Diario, and La Voz de Galicia. Tatily390 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as per @Tatily390 Juliusijidola (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Musement

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

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

I propose merging into TUI Group as this is lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability on its own. Amigao (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Software, Websites, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge though if TUI did not have an article, I would say delete because the sources on this article are quite poor it seems. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Graylog

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

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

This is in the conflict of interest request backlog. I do not see sources that would make this company notable under WP:NCORP. I looked through the first five pages of Google and nothing turned up. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Texas. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree that this should be deleted. The new notability guidelines specify that notability is not inherited from a product or from a notable person who might be the chief executive. The RS references in the article only describe what looks to be their only product, the chief executive who took over in 2020, and new financing of 12 years ago. A search of Newspapers.com reveals no mention in the Houston press from 2018 to 2026. A national search for the past two years likewise reveals nothing. A 2017 article in the Houston Chronicle (Nov 17, Page 29) says the following:

And where investable startups are concerned, there's also a lot more of them then most people realize. I bet most people haven't heard of … Graylog … These are all early to mid-stage technology and life sciences companies based in Houston that I'm an investor in. And there are many more such companies that I'm not investor in.

Julian in LA (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This is another one where the company and the software have the same name. I found many mentions of the software and a few reviews, and most notably that the software won some awards. Nearly all of the sources that I found were either blog posts or reiterations of marketing statements. There was very little about the company - however, if the software is (?) notable, then I suppose an article on the software might make sense. I'm not convinced of that notability -- but am keeping an open mind. Lamona (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm working the COI backlog queue also. I did a little source cleanup. The company sources are a bit weak, but the Houston Business Journal covered the company's relocation in 2015. I agree with the above sentiment that the product is more notable than the company. Analyst firm Gartner updated its product coverage in 2024. TechTarget published a product tutorial. There are a few technical product articles in Admin Magazine. I'm not sure anyone is going to take the time to convert this to a product article, so it might be easier to just leave it. STEMinfo (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Typical corporate spam, not a notable company. MediaKyle (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep 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. One of the Gold Standards when it comes to sourcing is being included in an analyst report where they discuss the company and the product at length (and not the type of report from a "financial" analyst that simply regurgitates annual accounts and makes a prediction on stock price movement). This company and their product have been written about, in depth, by analysts such as Gartner, Forrester, GigaOM and others. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The article looks like a company website, without strong encyclopedic content or clear notability. I have also looked at the COI edit request on this page (it was the oldest open request as of today). The original request was heavily based on the company's own material, and the requestor did not provide much independent sourcing in reply to another editor's request two months ago. I have completed what could be sourced in that request and closed it. Fiske (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Lemur Project

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

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

Subject is not sufficiently notable for an article Czarking0 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Comment

  The current version of the page is written in violation to this policy. However, AfD is not cleanup. I do not posses the required academia versatility to judge notability of this, though. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep

A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria ... It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement.

• "The Lemur Project, best known for its Indri search engine ... Their software development is based on the pillars of state-of-the-art accuracy, flexibility, and efficiency"^[1]
• First line of abstract: "We used Lemur Toolkit, an open source toolkit designed for Information Retrieval research, for our automated indexing and retrieval experiments on a TREC-like test collection for Turkish language"^[2]
• "The LEMUR toolkit and its Indri retrieval model is based on a combination of language modeling and inference network retrieval. It has been popular among CLEF participant in recent years and found effective for a wide range of retrieval tasks"^[3]

A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria ... It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

• Virginia Tech
• "The Lemur Toolkit has become a popular platform for doing a wide range of information retrieval teaching and research."^[4]

Uhoj (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)