Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Localizely

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.

There are several participants here who made supportive comments but who didn't cast a bolded vote so I've closed this discussion as a Soft deletion. In the future, please remember to cast a "vote" in addition to discussing sources and content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Localizely

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

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

Moved to mainspace after Draft was declined at AFC. WP:BEFORE didn't show any significant coverage of this software, and the current references in the article are primary sources (a press release, a list of software, and an offline source that I assume is a reference guide?). Nil🥝 05:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Serbia. Nil🥝 05:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Companies, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, and article is largely promotional in nature. The company hasn't done anything to establish itself as anything other than Run of Mill. I.e Theres no major awards, investments, development etc. It's just another company offering translation services. The lack of independent secondary sources which go into any level of detail about the company further confirm my suspicions that it's not notable GeekBurst (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Additional comments: The overwhelming number of Google search results for this company are primary sources i.e company GitHub, companies own website, social media pages etc, and the other results are 'Alternative To' style websites which just provide a list of companies offering a specific service - often added by the companies own staff. Zero media coverage. GeekBurst (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The profile here is non-independent; I can't find anything else other than directory entries and trivial mentions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From my perspective, this article aligns closely with other entries in the same category of software tools. If you look at the articles for Transifex, Lokalise, Phrase, Crowdin, Poedit, and Weblate, you'll find that they share significant similarities with this one and that they are all present on Wikipedia.

Regarding the references, I initially included two that, from my perspective, meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Later, I added two more to further support the claims made in the article. The first reference concerns Localizely and an investment from the Innovation Fund of the Republic of Serbia, which is funded by the European Union. The article explains the investment in Localizely due to its innovative approach to in-context translation editing for Flutter apps, a solution that I believe is unique on the market.

The second reference is the Flutter Complete Reference book by Alberto Miola, which provides guidance on developing mobile, desktop, and web apps using Flutter. In the first edition of this book, under the section “Chapter 13. Localization and internationalization”, Localizely is mentioned as one of the few tools supporting the Flutter ARB file format for software localization (there are also some screenshots of this tool). The book also highlights BabelEdit and Crowdin as similar tools (Crowdin already has a Wikipedia article).

Regarding the Netokracija article, while I’m not an expert on their work, Netokracija has been publishing content related to IT, innovation, and tech industry news in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia since 2009. The article features an interview with the founder of Localizely, where he discusses the product’s development and its unique value proposition. The fourth reference is a website that lists tools and SaaS products for developers, where this tool is mentioned as providing a completely free service for open-source projects. MeiyingVerse (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the status of other articles is irrelevant to whether this article should be deleted. Passing mentions and interviews with the founder are not significant independent coverage, and do not contribute to notability. The innovation fund is not an independent source either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional references (books) that mention Localizely as a tool that helps with the localization of Flutter applications. Flutter is still relatively young but already quite popular. I found these sources on Google Books. I hope that these four programming-related books can now be considered valid references. MeiyingVerse (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The acknowledgement of a companies existence in multiple media formats DOES NOT establish notability. As I previously mentioned, a company needs more than a passing mention in a book/article for it to be considered in relationship to notability. GeekBurst (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say this - Wikipedia has a tendency for articles to exist for many years before the notability is brought into question. With over 7,000,000 English articles it's to be expected those which don't meet the Wikipedia criteria can exist for years before an AFD is made GeekBurst (talk) 18:41, 14 October 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.