Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RE/flex

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE/flex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This computer program does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT. Of the five sources in the article, one is written by the article creator, Robert van Engelen, and thus not independent coverage; another is a brief passing mention; and the three book sources have no mention of the program since they were published before it was created. My WP:BEFORE does not turn up any better sources. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2025 (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.