Ucodelite: I've cleared out the blatant spam, and what's left is yet another non-notable IDE, with coverage only in primary sources.  Declined four times at draft, then finally speedy deleted as spam there too.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : Having seen that the COI editor had recreated the page, that a brand new editor had blanked the pervious discussion , and that the COI editor had blanked the COI statement off of their user page and then started claiming editor rights that they do not have , I just saw a big pile of shennanigans and missed that the AFD notice currently on the page was not just copied and pasted from the pre-deletion version of the page... so I moved the page into Draft space.  I apologize if this complicates matters.  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I'm not releated to Ucodelite, I had the only thing needed that to create My first Article Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] about Ucodelite, an IDE decide to attach to wikipedia, Be my first Article Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Salt -- assuming my moving of it to draft space gets untangled, this page which lacks in sourcing indicating notability and which has been recreated in attempts to evade procedure should be WP:SALTed to keep us from going through this again.  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 13:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, the article have been deleted!  Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 13:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] then please tell me what to do now Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 13:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been restored for the course of this discussion.  What you can try to do now is to present reliable, third-party sources that indicate that Ucodelite is notable.  Either that, or you can come to accept what has been pointed out by various experienced editors here, that the topic does not currently qualify for a Wikipedia page, and that you should direct your energies elsewhere.  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking the time to respond and clarify the situation regarding Ucodelite's Wikipedia page.  I understand that for a topic to be included on Wikipedia, it needs to meet certain notability criteria based on reliable, third-party sources.  While I don't have access to any existing Wikipedia articles on Ucodelite at this time, I'm happy to explore other avenues to demonstrate its notability.  Here's what I can do: Gather Credible Sources: I can search for articles, reviews, or mentions of Ucodelite in established publications, tech blogs, or industry reports.  These sources could help build a case for Ucodelite's notability within the tech community.  Consider Alternative Visibility Options: If a Wikipedia page isn't currently feasible, perhaps there are other online directories or platforms where Ucodelite's information can be presented in a credible way.  Would you be open to discussing alternative strategies to increase Ucodelite's online presence?  I'm open to your suggestions and expertise.  Thank you again for your feedback.  Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for considering my nomination for a Wikipedia page on Ucodelite.  I understand your concerns about the notability of Ucodelite at this time.  While I may not have been able to present third-party sources during this discussion, I am committed to building a strong case for Ucodelite's notability.  Here's what I propose: Time for Further Research: I would appreciate it if you could allow the article to remain for a designated period (perhaps 3-6 months) to give me time to gather more reliable sources that establish Ucodelite's notability.  Active Development: During this time, I will actively work on improving the article with credible sources and ensuring it meets Wikipedia's guidelines.  I understand that creating a Wikipedia page is a significant undertaking, and I am committed to putting in the necessary effort to create a high-quality article.  If, after the designated period, I am unable to provide sufficient evidence of Ucodelite's notability, I am happy to accept your decision and will withdraw the nomination.  This is my first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, and I am eager to learn and improve.   I would greatly appreciate your guidance and support in this process.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that we're not here to discuss "strategies to increase Ucodelite's online presence".  Deletion discussions typically run for about a week.  If there are WP:Secondary , WP:Reliable sources to show why it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article, then now is the time to add them.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have zero interest in working to promote the product, and using Wikipedia not only as a method to promote the product but to recruit others to help you promote the product is inappropriate.  There is neither a procedural basis nor any obvious reason for allowing this advertisement to remain on Wikipedia for months.  We do not aim to create articles hoping that the subject might some day become notable.  And our decision is unlikely to hinge on whether you are happy with the decision.  You are at this point still welcome to plan out a page off-line and when, in the future, you have sufficient references to establish notability, submit it again at Articles For Creation.  Let me recommend that if you take that path, you avoid the sort of promotional text that your work has been laden with, or you may run the risk of being judged not here to serve the goals of Wikipedia and have even those editing permissions removed.  You recently added a declaration on your user page that you are a Recent Changes Patroller .  While I see nothing in your edit history that suggests that is actually the case, it does suggest a path you might take if you truly want to learn to edit and improve Wikipedia.  By steering away from topics that you are passionate about and instead checking new changes to see if they are properly worded, formatted, and sourced, you may gain better insight on the procedures and goals of this website.  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 15:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Salt : No secondary sources exist.  Nothing on Google, DuckDuckGo, or Kagi.  Article previously was just advertising and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your software.  Would recommend SALTing due to repeated attempts to recreate the page.  Also, I would recommend the article creator to not use ChatGPT to generate replies in AfD discussions.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Salt .  Not notable, no coverage, ad article.  Cortador ( talk ) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and implement any and all technical measures necessary to prevent further disruption.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 06:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:TNT v/r - Seawolf35 T -- C 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete