Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftWood

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

SoftWood

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

SoftWood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Lacks proper sourcing, fails GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NORG. As there isn't even a claim of notability, I've added Template:Db-A7. G11 probably also applies. 174.254.192.80 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've declined the A7; often better with longstanding articles to allow the deletion discussion to play out. Also I note no-one bothered to notify the creator, Polluks, who is still active. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as this is not a company that appears to be notable, particularly prior to becoming defunct. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep because of its historical software. -- Polluks ★ 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete just because its software is historical, it doesn't make a company any more notable. (see WP:IHN) If there are sources about the software itself then the software is notable, and not a company. There need to be independent sources about the company itself.Unspectrogram (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not nearly enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2021 (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.