Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxifier


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Boxifier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod contested by article creator so here we are. Fails WP:NPRODUCT with no third-party sources given. shoy (reactions) 13:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not satisfy software notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

shoy, Boxifier targets a niche, but it is used by people around the world. Here is an article on a reputable blog that mentions the fact that this product helps researchers to find cures for neurological disorders - www.goo.gl/1wL5u3. I created this page because Boxifier is a mature product with history and results, not some new entry looking for attention. The reason for creating the page is that it is listed in a comparison table with several other products and it is the only one with a missing page. If you don't feel this should be on Wikipedia, that's fine. I just thought it is helpful, because it is used by so many people each day. (User talk:Andreeaken 08:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and some of those articles might very well fail WP:NPRODUCT also. Every article has to stand on its own merits by providing in-depth coverage in WP:RS. I would suggest that you could merge the information into the article of the software company, but they don't have an article either. shoy (reactions) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Would creating an article of the software company in which I could merge this information be flagged as WP:NCOMPANY and the same notability reasons invoked before proposing it for deletion? Ultimately, if this Wikipedia article existing would personally cause you or anyone else trouble then it is just better for it to be deleted. I guess the other articles that clearly fail WP:NPRODUCT were just lucky to not be deleted. (User talk:Andreeaken 31 August 2017 (UTC))
 * It depends on how notable the company is. Based on what I can find online, they barely have a website, much less coverage in reliable sources. Also, if you feel that other pages fail WP:NPRODUCT, feel free to propose them for deletion. shoy (reactions) 20:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  06:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relist final

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the GNG and it odesn't have the amount of mentions in lists that I personally would prefer to exist. OSE is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.