This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Software. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
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:deletion sorting|Software|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Delete My search found only user-generated reviews and brief mentions. For anyone else searching, the company is now named Ofelia though the software name has not changed. M kuhner (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and also blatantly AI-generated in violation of WP:LLM (see e.g. this diff that removed The publicly available sources consulted for this article do not provide independently verified figures for the number of teachers involved in these services or the number of ijazahs issued through the application, an example of WP:AIDISCLAIMER). No independent coverage besides routine reporting of a ceremony where the application was announced, which just repeats what the announcers have to say about the app. This should not be merged to Muslim World League because it is LLM-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I'm actively improving the article. Please identify any sections that need rewriting, and I'll address them. -Dina96 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Rewrite completed. I made a tremendous effort to improve the article, rewriting almost every line. If any issues remain, please identify the sections that need further revision, and I’ll fix them. --Dina96 (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This does not address WP:Notability at all. One of the new references is a press release and the other is a new article just published today on f7wa.com, an obscure, anonymously run online encyclopedia that does not appear to be a reliable source. And merely rewording + trimming LLM-generated text does not resolve the problem of LLM usage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep — I have added further sources, including An-Nahar newspaper analysis, Okaz newspaper articles, and coverage of Minhaj's May 2026 partnership. I removed the f7wa reference. Minhaj is designed to serve Muslim communities worldwide, and its practical value may be less apparent to those who have not used it. However, I recognize that usefulness alone does not establish notability, and ask that the additional independent coverage be assessed under WP:GNG.--Dina96 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:NCORP asks for significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. This article is entirely based on coverage from WP:TECHCRUNCH, which itself s borderline reliable. Brandon (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Brandon (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The concept/term is from a single source which seems to be the 2014 Brunnert et al one, and the article is essentially a summary of that paper. The core sources are that paper and its German-language version, all other citations are general software performance engineering and application performance management literature that, as far as I can tell don't even use this term. Couldn't find any independent reliable sources that discuss the concept, so fails WP:GNG Suggestion is to delete, or redirect to Application performance managementIndrasBet (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: there was a declined PROD shortly after it was published to mainspace in 2014 (passing AfC, but 12 years later that might not mean much); this means we won't be soft deleting should it come to that. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I failed to see that the term picked the currency. Basically sinngle-source. Tho other refs (for SPE and APM) are tangential, pinched from the single source summarized here, and do not theat the subject of this article. --Altenmann>talk 00:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Searching on scholar found only publications by Brunnert that used this term to describe this concept. Lots of false positives for "performance management" + "work" as separate words though. ~ A412talk! 17:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable previously international office of mozilla. Japanese article isn't very strong either. Greatder (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Greatder (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging these articles because The protocol and the app are both discontinued and it would be better for historical purposes if the information about the two was in one article. The Skype protocol article is quite short as well. - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fynd (brand) was closed as no consensus due to keep !votes from two low-edit-count users and another user later blocked for undisclosed paid editing. I've waited the customary 3 months after a no consensus discussion as suggested by the closer, so let's try this again. Of the sources presented during that AfD:
Harvard Business School is sufficient to count, but one source cannot create an article by itself
Inc42 fails WP:ORGIND as it consists entirely of content attributed to the company. RGB49D claimed While it references the pitch deck, it also contains original reporting, but I don't see it and am inclined to give that claim zero weight as the user was blocked for UPE.
AnalyticsIndiaMag consists primarily of content attributed to the company (whole paragraphs are quotes from the founders) and hence fails WP:ORGIND. Some of the paragraph aren't quoted but it appears highly unlikely that they would so their own analysis of half of the company's history and let the founder speak for the other half -- far more likely they are paraphrases of what the founder said. This falls far short of the requirement in WP:ORGIND that the content be clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
Business Standard is behind a paywall, but just from the title alone ("Meet the data geek who builds robust sales models for small shopkeepers") and the puffy language in the first paragraph ("Data is akin to oxygen for any modern day commerce, whether online or even offline") I can tell this is clearly not going to satisfy WP:ORGIND.
Finally, remember this is an Indian topic so all sources need to be viewed with an extra layer of skepticism (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA/Paid news in India). And with that, I've responded to the previous round of vacuous, likely motivated arguments to keep this article created by WP:GAMENAMEing in clear circumvention of proper processes. Let's see what the next round brings ... * Pppery *it has begun... 23:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fyndoune from 2009 was on a completely different subject that happens to start with "Fynd", and is simply a false positive of how the "AfDs for this article" works; to the best of my knowledge, it is the only AfD in that list that is not some iteration of the Indian software company subject. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
I propose merging to malware because pretty much all malware is made for automating cybercrime, this is not really a separate category setting it apart from other malware. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, frankly these articles are unnecessarily confused in their coverage. This particular article starts "Crimeware (as distinct from spyware and adware)" implying that crimeware is distinct from spyware, and promptly goes on to describe key-loggers and other such, which are also described as spyware in the spyware article. The Malware article meanwhile defines itself as "is any software intentionally designed to cause disruption or destruction to a computer, server, client, or computer network, leak private information, gain unauthorized access to information or systems, deprive access to information, or interfere with the user's computer security and privacy without their knowledge.", and then goes on to include adware, which includes software that openly offers itself to willing "victims" on a you-can-use-me-for-free-if-you-don't-mind-me-showing-you-adverts business model, hardly intentionally disruptive without the user's knowledge! At the moment we seem to have a whole set of articles on undesirable software, all covering heavily-overlapping stuff, with poor adware feeling like it mistakenly accepted an invitation to the wrong sort of party. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Slight merge, or possibly just redirect. This term was a freshly coined neologism when the article was created; 21 years later, it's clear that it never caught on. I don't think there's much that needs to be merged here; malware already appears to cover all the same ground. Omphalographer (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
"Merge selectively". My concern is that there may not be anything worth merging; this article is much less developed than the target. Omphalographer (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, since crimeware is unlikely to be considered a distinct enough category for it to be a separate term. That being said, the nominator's statement that pretty much all malware is made for automating cybercrime isn't fully correct, so I would propose merging into cybercrime, either instead or as well. I think the redirect would be better sent to cybercrime, but I think the info can be merged into both articles. guninvalid (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2026 (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.
I propose merging into Google Mobile Services because Google Play Services is a component of Google Mobile Services. It is a background system application that is part of the Google Mobile Services suite. In this case, I see no benefit whatsoever to fracture and have them as two separate articles. It only causes undue confusion particularly given the similar names. Let it all be under one Google Mobile Services banner, which includes Google Play Services and other closely related components. Foneuservan (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Wow you're quick!FaviFake (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Updated request: I have been swayed by both new views that a merge to Google Play is actually better. On a technical level they are both a part of the Google Mobile Services umbrella anyway. --Foneuservan (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If merged, then which one's the best target....Google Play or Google Mobile Services....? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Article created and maintained by multiple SPAs (many of them blocked for spamming) with little significant edit done by other users. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 15:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to relevant parent and save content. Destruction of information needs to be our very last resort and never taken lightly. — VPP (t/c) 16:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Who created or maintained an article isn't a reason to delete it; the question is whether the company meets WP:NCORP, and it clearly does. There is in-depth independent coverage going back years before the IBM deal: John Markoff's piece in The New York Times ("Securing data by scattering the pieces", August 2006) is almost entirely about Cleversafe and its dispersal technology, and The Register published a long analysis of the company's history, funding and customers in March 2014 (Chris Mellor, "How much data must you have before you need Cleversafe?"). Crain's Chicago Business, the Chicago Tribune and Fortune covered it again from 2014 to 2016, most of it already cited in the article. The promotional wording is a real problem, but that is a matter for cleanup, not deletion (WP:ATD-E, WP:NOTCLEANUP). A redirect to IBM Cloud Object Storage would lose the history of a company that was notable well before IBM bought it. Serindaly (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
For ease of verification, since these sources are very imprecisely cited: Nytimes, The Register. The rest of this comment doesn't provide enough bibliographic info to know what sources it is talking about. I'll refrain from making any other comments on the merits because, while I acknowledge Wikipedia rules do say otherwise, I think "company article subject to spam with no interest from the community in maintaining it" should be a reason for deletion by itself, as should "article created by account later blocked for undisclosed paid editing". * Pppery *it has begun... 02:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
And IBM Cloud Object Storage is a redirect here, so discussing a redirect there makes no sense. I really want to delete this, but my reasons for doing so aren't convincing by Wikipedia's standards. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 17:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Well, to comment, an article created in a block evasion is a great reason for deletion, it actually makes our decision here easy... Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Draftify: There are hints of notability, before the company was acquired by IBM, with the sources provided. But this version of the article isn't ready for prime time, yet. Needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Sourcing is entirely run-of-the-mill listicles and brief reviews that read like paid promotions or advertorials. Noting that most of the sourcing was added during the previous AfD, which staved off deletion, but there is no depth to the coverage whatsoever. Compare to, say, QuickBooks, which (although the article is full of junk and primary sourcing) has attracted sustained and more-detailed coverage to the point that a viable encyclopaedia article could be written without opinions, lists of features, or primary sourcing. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
The review provides 934 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Invoicera is a packed-to-the-hilt cloud-based billing and invoicing software platform that can also be used on the move via an app edition. It features a very clean and logically laid out interface, with a stack of great and very practical features that makes it a very well-rounded package for business owners as well as individuals working for themselves too, especially in light of the coronavirus crisis ... Invoicera isn’t a complete accounts solution, but it’s a powerful supplement."
Krause, Chelsea (2019-07-09). "Invoicera Review". Merchant Maverick. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Merchant Maverick's editorial guidelines note: "Reviews, posts, and other content are written in an objective fashion, based on facts about the product(s) and our unbiased interpretation of those facts." The "How this site makes money" page notes: "Merchant Maverick does not get paid to write reviews, either positive or negative. If a vendor approaches us with an offer of cash or other incentives in exchange for a positive review, we refuse – we always have and we always will. Our editorial team and our partnerships team operate separately." This article in The New York Times said, "If you are looking for a single place to see reviews of various merchant service providers, take a look at Merchant Maverick. I came across this site while searching for information on CardFellow, and I read a few reviews. I liked the format. I have no idea whether it is doing a good job, but at least it offers a point of view. It didn’t offer reviews of PNC or Emerald World, but it did review Wells Fargo and WorldPay, both of which I have dealt with — and those reviews seemed to comport with my limited experiences. Merchant Maverick also has reviews of point-of-sale systems and shopping-cart providers — something for everybody!" The Minneapolis Business Journaldiscussed the publication's research, as did the Miami Herald. There are more press mentions here.
The review provides over 2,000 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Launched in 2006, Invoicera has now grown to 125 employees and facilitates the sending of an average of 200,000 invoices a year, worldwide. Invoicera offers strong invoicing with ample invoice automations, the ability to send invoices in 15 different languages, and 30 payment gateway options for accepting online payments. In addition to strong invoicing, Invoicera offers project management, time tracking, auto billing, and more. Unfortunately, the software isn’t as developed as it could be. Time tracking and reporting are limited and there are no live bank feeds — which is surprising for a company so focused on automation (especially since even many of the worst invoicing options out there still offer live bank feeds). Invoicera also suffers from poor customer service, and there have hardly been any updates as of late."
The review provides 160 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Invoicera is a great invoicing software that works well for small and medium-sized businesses, freelancers, and even larger companies. It offers a variety of features that make managing invoices easy and efficient. With Invoicera, I can track my expenses, manage my time, and even set up auto-billing. This means I can get paid faster without having to chase after clients. Key Features. Customizable Invoices: I can tailor each invoice to fit my business needs. Expense Management: This helps me keep track of all my costs in one place. Time Tracking: I can log hours worked on projects, which is super helpful for billing. Project Management Tools: I can manage my projects alongside my invoicing, making everything more organized. ... Invoicera is a powerful tool that can help me avoid common invoicing errors like not sending invoices on time or failing to specify due dates. By using this software, I can improve my invoicing process and ensure I get paid on time!"
This is precisely the sort of run-of-the mill coverage I would expect to see of any software company trying to establish a web presence for its product. There's no depth or substance to it, and we shouldn't rely on reviews to establish notability. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: even the sourcing (and "keep" opinion) that staved off deletion in 2015 only brought it to a "no consensus" closure (and while most of the other opinions were for deletion, they were pretty much all "weak delete" and didn't sufficiently tip the scales in that direction). Our standards are presumably a bit tighter 11 years later, but no opinion on if the latest sources will be enough to prevent deletion again this time. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
TechRadar article says "When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission." ~2026-55002-39 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Decidedly too thin when it comes to sourcing. Geschichte (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Article has no references, and from what I can tell it has been unreferenced since it was created. I was unable to find any sources that satisfy WP:GNG. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – unsourced since creation (WP:V, WP:GNG). Kukuryza (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy: I think this can be moved to draft space to add proper sources or an editor can work on it now to add some, this seems like a useful article to be simply deleted for lack of sources. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - I have added two sources to improve the article for now. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is too old to draftify. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I updated the tag. No opinion about the subject itself. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Archive file as an WP:ATD. Apparently, the subject is mostly discussed in the context of archiving. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 23:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like a non-notable company. The only source passing as independent significant coverage is Forrester Wave. Vgbypw (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete - the Dallas Business Journal is potential significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 17:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy to User:SultanKaziyani/Accelq: My gut is saying that its a close call. Most of the sources appear to not be independent, but there is *some* coverage that can be found on Google Scholar. Since I think it's possible that it could meet it, or that sources could be found, I'd say userfying makes better sense in this case. AaronNealLucas (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:13, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete – funding briefs and the company's own site do not add up to WP:NCORP coverage. Kukuryza (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I tried hard to find more sources, but found nothing beyond routine coverage. Ureekish (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep In addition to the Forrester mentioned by nom, it was evaluated in these Gartner reports. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Good WPBEFORE job. The Forrester and Gartner reports might change the picture. I will, perhaps, reevaluate my vote. Ureekish (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Based on the sources from Dallas Business Journal, Forrester and Gartner, the situation changes and we can keep the article. Veronikasuss (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)— Blocked sockpuppet of Eyoab, see investigation.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 21:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Magic Quadrants contain sufficient details. 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. While inclusion in a research report by an analyst firm is a gold standard (because those reports provide in-depth independent content about the topic company), inclusion on a Forrester Wave graph or Gartner Magic Quadrant does *not* provide any such independent content - in some cases, it is a dot and the name on a graph, wholly insufficient. I'm unable to locate a research report that includes the topic company but happy to be corrected if someone locates one. HighKing++ 15:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't have access to the reports, but I thought they all have a more or less identical structure. Gartner Magic Quadrant usually provides bullet points of strengths and cautions related to the company that was included in a magic quadrant, for example. I also linked to another report Critical Capabilities for AI-Augmented Software Testing Tools. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Gartner's own methodology on "magic quadrants" says they are market analyses, not profiles of individual companies. At best it provides a sentence or two about a company, that is not in-depth. HighKing++ 19:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
The page you linked says,
Magic Quadrants help you: Get quickly educated about a market’s competing technology providers and their ability to deliver on what end users require today and in the future Understand how a market’s technology providers are competitively positioned and the strategies they are using to compete for end-user business Compare a technology provider’s strengths and challenges with your specific needs.
There are examples of such reports, they provide more than a few sentences on a company. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Kelob2678, it certainly appears that Magic Quadrant reports contain sufficient details after all, thank you for taking the time to find examples! I've changed my !vote to Keep. HighKing++ 10:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per the sources Kelob2678 turned up, which was really good BEFORE work. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The above sources do not meet WP:NCORP. Under WP:MULTSOURCES, the Gartner Magic Quadrant and Critical Capabilities reports seem to count as one source, as they come from the same publisher and largely the same analysts. Forrester would be another. That leaves at most two, both mainly comparing vendors.
The depth of coverage is also a concern. The Gartner reports are paywalled, and the example PDFs linked above are about other vendors. They don't tell us what Gartner actually wrote about ACCELQ. The 2020 Forrester Wave, reference 7 in the article, gives ACCELQ about 230 words, mostly about product features. Its methodology mentions vendor questionnaires, briefings and vendor-supplied references, with vendors also allowed to review the findings. That does not by itself make the report unusable, but I don't think the coverage shown here is enough for WP:CORPDEPTH.
I couldn't find much significant independent coverage outside these reports either. Dallas Business Journal is paywalled, so I can't assess the full text, but the headline and summary look very similar to the company's earlier announcement about revenue growth and hiring. The April article is mainly about returning to offices, with a quote from the CEO. The Financial Express and ETCIO pieces look like routine product coverage, with the concerns under WP:NEWSORGINDIA also relevant. The Google Scholar results are passing mentions in broader surveys. Taken together, I don't think these sources provide the significant independent coverage needed under WP:NCORP. Ammy Connoly (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just because there are paywalled sources from analysts doesn't mean they doesn't count towards NCORP criteria. The depth of coverage in both the Gartner and Forrester reports are sufficient. HighKing++ 13:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I've changed my initial !vote. The Gartner and Forrester reports, and also the Dallas Business Journal coverage highlighted above, are sufficient for meeting GNG and NORG notability. Ureekish (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet of Loewstisch, see investigation. Netstars22(talk to me!) 15:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I request you to please look at my analysis above once. Gartner's Magic Quadrant and Critical Capabilities reports come from the same publisher, so under WP:MULTSOURCES they count as one source, and Forrester would be the second. Both are mainly vendor comparisons. We also can't see what Gartner actually wrote about ACCELQ because it is paywalled, and the sample PDFs shared above are about other companies. Forrester gives around 230 words, mostly about product features, which is not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. If you have seen the Gartner text on ACCELQ, kindly share it here. Ammy Connoly (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
