Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:34, 27 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion 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 WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. 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:delsort|Software|~~~~}} 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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

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:

Purge page cache

watch

Software

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. JForget 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, article does not assert notability; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references given only prove the company's appearance on some gov't lists. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I had put a {{Prod2}} on the article … totally fails WP:CORP. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another producer of non-consumer software: They produce software Energy management software, Energy monitoring and targeting software and Carbon accounting systems. No indication of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2010 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HR-XML & HR-XML Consortium Inc.

AfD statistics)

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

A library of XML schemas and the organisation that develops them. No evidence of notability offered. HR-XML had a previous discussion three years ago with a "no consensus" result and there has been no improvement to the article since then. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. More back office minutiæ from the IT department: a library of XML schemas developed by the HR-XML Consortium, Inc. to support a variety of business processes related to human resource management... No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Romuald Restout] Comment on the request for deletion for HR-XML I respectfully disagree with the comment that HR-XML has no technical significance. HR-XML standards are widely used in the HR software field and in adjacent industries. Numerous organizations both for-profit and non-profit (including governmental organizations in Europe) have implemented those standards or are using it in some sort —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrestout (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HR-XML Consortium article. Agree with above comment, HR-XML standards are widely used in the industry and amongst very notable organizations. Initial references have been added to the article, more to come. --Kmcdowell12 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Between them they manage one piece of (potentially) independent coverage. Searching doesn't find anything more. Falls a long way short of meeting WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (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.

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. JForget 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SafeConsole

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

This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this product in multiple reliable sources. Two earlier articles were created by this user as part of the same project, and they were both recently deleted via AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster Them From Space 02:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is a web-based secure USB management software developed by BlockMaster for administering SafeStick flash drives. As noted, this is a habitual spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole process of paying to include an article in wikipedia is borderline to un-ethical. A more proper process could include volunteers. Pxtreme75 (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSSolve

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

No public references or original research JanT (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As original author of this article I nominated it for deletion as there are no open sources available about this application. While I was creating the article and finding some lovely detailed sources/references/footnotes I only realised half way during writing that I had my VPN to the Microsoft corporate domain active and all the nice detailed information I could find about MSSolve was all MS confidential and not available on the internet: as said: while writing it I wasn't really aware that the VPN to the MS network was active..... Thus now the article is unsourced and could be seen as 'original research' which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. JanT (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested by the author and sole editor of the article. I couldn't find any public sources either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2010 (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.

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 speedy delete - text was copied from Bungie.net Marasmusine (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Bug Release (ZBR)

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

WP:NEO. No claims of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its video game terminology for a specific stage in development that wasn't covered by any articles so I thought I should add it. ChaoticReaper (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abaqus

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

Nothing more than advertising. Tootitnbootit (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This doesn't read like advertising to me and notability can be determined by many books and news articles listed by google. --Karnesky (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar gets nearly 50,000 hits for this software (even if most of those are just to its documentation) from a reasonable range of fields and mostly from refereed journals. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are you kidding? Delete Abaqus? It is a very notable subject and its notability can be easily established. I cannot find a mechanical engineering journal which has not named this software. Instead of going through the pain of nominating this article for deletion, establish its notability that's too easy. In fact, I'll get to it, now. Fleet Command (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click Google news search at the top of the AFD. I'll list the first three results
Dassault Systemes to acquire Abaqus Inc for 413 mln usd cash - Forbes - May 17, 2005
Company notable enough to be sold for 413 million dollars in US cash, and for the sale of it to be mentioned in Forbes.
Announces New Multiphysics Technology in Abaqus Release 6.10 - Wall Street Journal - May 24, 2010
The Wall Street Journal talks about a new release of it.
STAR-CCM+ and Abaqus Co-Simulation Makes Seamless Fluid-Structure - msnbc.com - May 25, 2010
MSNBC seems to find it notable enough to talk about. And there are others of course. Plus Google books shows results. [1]
Dream Focus 09:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MSNBC link is dead but don't worry: There are a lot of web site that have reported the same news with same title. Fleet Command (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NX Nastran

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parasolid

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable in having several book sources [2] [3][4][5][6]. The article also has a reference to an external RS, namely [7]. The article needs editing and improving, not deletion, per deletion policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar gets nearly 1,750 hits for this software (or for its associated file format), from a wide range of sources and fields, including many from refereed journals. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2010 (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.

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEi Nastran

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sources have now been added for verification and to qualify notability; POV content has been removed. The number of external links has been reduced to comply with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Teidukonis (talk) 1:15, 8 July 2010 (PDT)

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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluent, Inc.

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a subsidiary of a parent corp which is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANSYS, Inc.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should probably be merged with its parent company now. -Lonedrops (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. no arguments for deletion aside from nom JForget 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSYS, Inc

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note the following article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluent, Inc. a product of Ansys - is also up for deletion and should be combined discussion, but I am not sure how to do that. Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the article itself is actually ANSYS, Inc. (with a period) the links above are just to the redirect. Active Banana (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I vote no. If you have a question on citations then the external link is available. ANSYS is a fortune 1000 company that is a major cog in both the regional and national economies. Not sure how this would be a legitimate candidate for deletion, I better check Walt Disney Company, General Electric and Simon Property Group now before they too are also deemed unencylopedic. Hholt01 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this article is being targeted. As with many articles on mid-sized companies, most of the info that's available is the basics: the type of stuff that comes from a business magazine or a company website. While it needs improved, this goes for a massive number of articles.Mr. Vitale (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint on why the nomination: targeted deletion probably from a competitor of those companies. Canonebeseriouz (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple possible sources can be found by the above search links to establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be rewritten. The company is notable from searches.Lonedrops (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs to be improved, but topic meets WP:ORG. Dewritech 06:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs)

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.

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack (command-line utility)

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

Procedural nomination - previously deleted via proposed deletion with the reason of "Unreferenced since creation in 2007, fails to assert importance". (Previous version here.) Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Why did you restore the article history? Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, but ack deserves coverage. Narrow-minded wiki-proceduralism will undoubtedly delete it anyway, but it's a little-known tool that's actually of great value and deserves to be more widely known. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it deserve coverage? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it doesn't, at least not as an encyclopedia article. There's nothing encyclopedic about most gnu/linux/unix commands, and plenty of coverage on the web in howto and tutorials. WP is not about howtos. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ack seems to be actively used from programmers as described at http://blog.endpoint.com/2009/03/ack-grep-for-developers.html or http://www.ubuntugeek.com/ack-grep-a-grep-like-program-specifically-for-large-source-trees.html . My vague interpretation is that it should at least have a mention on grep if not a separate article.Pxtreme75 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (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.

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FolderPlay

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

No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Article seems promotional noq (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article was recently undeleted as a result of this discussion at Deletion Review. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The deletion review overturned a speedy delete with most commentators saying prod or afd it instead. noq (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a relatively feature-poor audio player for Nokia phones running the Symbian OS. I looked and found nothing that looked like substantial coverage in a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSOFT. Yet another attempt at wikiadvertisement. SnottyWong ^converse 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having looked closely at this case, I do not believe that this software meets our notability criteria. This is not a judgement on the quality of the software itself, but merely a view that it doesn't yet have enough independent coverage to support a quality article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comments:

1) Nyttend nominated the Article for speady A7, which was wrong. 7:0 consensus in Deletion Review overruled A7. Naturally, Nyttend didn't apologize.

2) The Deletion Review was closed Jclemens before end of 7 days period. This also was wrong thing to do, because already Lankiveil ruled out (on m656 user talk page) that, despite consensus, the discussion will continue for 7 days, saying " the correct amount of time must be allowed to elapse before the page can be undeleted " - and overruling other editors' decisions withou a severe reason is not allowed.

3) The pour article now got saved from false A7, and was returned to its previous status, with the ruling by Schuhpuppe shortly before erroneous A7, saying " I've added some cleanup tags to the article, including one for notability. This is not a request for deletion ". At no time, the Civility-Award winning editor Noq is knocking down the existing cleanup request down (without allowing the required seven days for submitting a better version, as ruled out by Scuhpuppe)

Guys, I'm not suggesting that sub-standard articles should be allowed to stay. I'm just reminding you the guidelines "assume good faith" and "do not bite a novice".

m656 (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) It may look like a consensus is forming for deletion, but this is not really so. Not only did the editors SnottyWong and Lankiveil participate in A7 Deletion Review (so shey shouldn't participate in THIS review), but their opinion there was also used in nominating FolderPlay for afd. This is like double or even triple voting.

5) There was no majority supporting afd in the Delete Review. Only 3 out of 7 suggested afd. This is minority view, not majority. (The "prod", suggested by the Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is something completely different).

6) The remaining two editors that suggest "deletion", actually checked not yet written article. The moment I started to write it, it was "speedy deleted" by Editor Nyttend. The not-yet-writeen article spent five days in deleted state, speedy undeleted two days before the end of 7 days, and here you go - at the same day the two Editors are voting for it to be deleted...

7) Do not you know that Wikipedia editing process is intended to be learned by making mistakes? When you see an unwritten article, you are supposed to frendly recommend the fellow writer to take it to User Space. The deletion is only there in order to deal with uncooperative writers. This is a nice opportunity to learn it.

8) Now article is written, and some support of notability is provided. Please ignore the opinions expressed before the artice was written.

9) There is a link to a blog posting by an independent expert in the field of media on mobile, which clearly describes the application as notable.

If the software is not notable, how it has 449,000 results in Google? Almost half million appearances, with many more in Eastern languages...

10) The presented notability reference is not the only one, please do not delete the article and allow it to continue to be written and additional references to be included in normal process of collaborative editing.

m656 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1) The deletion review only addressed the issue of whether the application of the speedy deletion criteria was correct. The consensus from the review was the article did not qualify under the speedy deletion criteria. That is not an endorsement that that the article meets inclusion criteria. It does mean that in order for the article to be deleted, it should go through a more thorough process which this AFD is.

2) The timing of the closure of the deletion review is irrelevant to this AFD. The outcome of the deletion review was to overturn the speedy deletion. I'd point out that most editors in the review had doubts as to the article being sufficient to survive and AFD.

3) My reading of the comment from Schuhpuppe is that he was assuring you that he wasn't nominating the article for deletion by applying article improvement tags to it. The fact that he tagged it for notability would indicate that he had doubts as to whether the article would meet inclusion criteria.

4) There is no prohibition from the editors you listed to participate in this AFD. And the fact is, they both agreed that speedy deletion was inappropriate and that it should be overturned and brought here. By the way, AFD is not a vote, so they aren't voting, and their participation here isn't doubel or triple voting.

5) The outcome of the deletion was "Restored per consensus that A7 does not apply to this topic. Any editor may PROD or AfD the article at his or her discretion." It's quite clear that noq has used his discretion to nominate this article for deletion. This quite consistent with the outcome of teh deletion review.

6) I don't understand how any editor can check an unwritten article. This AFD did not appear until an article actually existed. And once there is an article, it can be reviewed by any editor participating in an AFD.

7) There is nothing stopping you from copying this article to a draft in your userspace right now. Feel free to copy it to User:M656/Folderplay.

8) I don't know about other editors but the article as it currently is written is what I am basing my opinion on.

9) Blogs aren't reliable sources. And counting google hits doesn't make something notable. Coverage in reliable sources is what is needed, and there has not been any presented. Non-english sources are acceptable so if you know of any please add them.

10) If the presented sources are not the only ones, then you really should add these additional sources. I've looked for them and found none.

-- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If blog review is not good enough - fine, it is not difficult to find a magazine article too. For example, Folder Play is discussed in PC Advisor Magazine (UK)

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3228710.

m656 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is a review for an MP3 player (hardware), and not a review of FolderPlay. Did you link to the right article? -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. It is removed. m656 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Can you please provide a link to the right article? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability now is only supported by the article by Review by Patrick Campbell in Nokia N96 http://nokian96.net/2009/07/15/nokia-n96-app-review-folderplay

( Other references only support particular points, like existence of support for a particular format, or existence of support for Chinese. They are not supposed to support notability. )

It was said by Whpq that "Blogs aren't reliable sources". It is only generally correct. For example, coverage in Techcrunch.com or Mashable.com is much better that any published magazine. There are thousands of references to FolderPlay in various unreliable blogs and forums. But Nokia N96 is different. It is like a magazine.

Check this link : http://nokian96.net/author/paddyc1988/ This is the collection of all articles by Patrick Campbell. You can press "next page". There are seventeen pages of articles. It's clear that he is an expert on mobile phones.

Nokia 96 is a strictly controlled publishing environment, more similar to a on-line magazine than to a blog. So it's a borderline notability case and there is no need to delete the article. FolderPlay is very far being hoplessly non-notable. In fact, a 100% proper article almost certainly does exist on the web, only it is difficult to find because of the abundance of downloading sites. Or maybe it is in Chinese, where it is notable for native Chinese support, or in one of languages of Continental Europe, where it is notable for letting people listen to opera on Symbian-running phones.

One should look at at the general practice of Editors *which often accept this level of prominence and notability). Consistency is among the most important components of overall quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not going to be a better Wikipedia if FolderPlay is deleted. For a software that appear at half million pages, the readers do expect to find a short answer to the question "What's that?", written in a objective, neutral tone.

Actually, Improvement of Wikipedia takes precedence over formal criteria. There even is a guidance against deleting valuable material that contributes to Wikipedia.

m656 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So where is this coverage? I can't find it. And despite your claim that magazine coverage is abundant, no evidence of magazine coverage has been produced. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't claim magazine coverage is abundant, I do think the magazine coverage probably exists (given abundance of web presence). Meanwhile, the higher end blog coverage may suffice for temporarily not not deleting the article. Since there is no urgent problems with it, and there is a good chance that within say a month it will evolve into a perfect article (including perfectly proper demonstration of notability), why to delete?

m656 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The google coverage is not as vast as it seems at first sight. see this search which shows that if you follow the links it runs out at about 840 hits. probably exists is not really positive enough to establish notability. The sources given in the article at the moment appear to be either blogs or forums which are not considered WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- comment I see no evidence that "coverage probably exists". A lot of google hits is not indicative of coverage in magazines. As for why delete now, it's because the article doesn't meet notability requirements. There is no prohibition against recreating the article in the future if coverage in reliable sources occurs to establish notability. But we don't peer into the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Whpk, you have considered multiple notability-supporting

arguments separately, and rejected then one by one. Yet I think they all add up to a reasonably well motivated (by the sum of small factors - when considered together).

m656 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. The article has been significantly improved since its nominations and seems to meet basic notability standards. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-DEAS

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I could not find significant coverage in/by reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 03:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is apparently about a CAD program. Also obvious advertising, promotional to the point of borderline patent nonsense: Many I-DEAS users are transitioning, or considering transition, to a more current solution-set. One such transition path is to NX 5 which has enriched the NX product by incorporating many features of I-DEAS. Other users are transitioning through use of I-deas NX developed under Siemens PLM Software's I-DEAS Evolution of Excellence program designed to transfer and protect I-DEAS users' skills. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be improved to sound less like an ad, but there are pages of possible sources listed on google books for '"i-deas"' that establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is beyond repair but the system itself seems to be notable. A fresh start is needed to make this encyclopedic. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the stub. It no longer reads like an ad and asserts notability. ~~It uses only a single reference now.~~ More book references, mentioned above, should be added if they contain relevant material. --Karnesky (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 29. Courcelles (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article in its present state does indicate notability and has references (unlike the version afd'd in June). There seem to be plenty of other potential sources of material. Occuli (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure if it's notable, but the article much cleaner now thanks to Karnesky. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I-DEAS appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability per this Google Books search which includes sources such as this, this, and this. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as shown by Cunard it's notable. Dewritech (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ok, I'm convinced by Cunard's sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antispyware soft

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

Article was apparently created to "help people about by alerting them of this virus". The article seems to simply be instructions on how to diagnose and remove the virus, and is not encyclopaedic by any means. The fact that the contributor's purpose was to make others aware of the virus also suggests that it is not notable, and the references are simply from websites (largely user-contributed) which are set up to aide in the removal of many different malware programs, so there is no indication that this is any more notable than any other virus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:50, 27 June 2010 (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.

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 AFD closed. No comments from other users and administrators, except the AFD nominator and author of the article. /Hey Mid (contributions) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Fix it Center

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

I am not sure this article qualifies for notability (WP:Notability). /Hey Mid (contributions) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopWiki

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

No evidence of notability. I couldn't find any references to it but that might be because "desktop wiki" is primarily a generic term. Schuhpuppe (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is a download page. Joe Chill (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClipboardMultiSharer

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

No indication at all as to why this is important. No sources, third-party coverage, or relevant search results. It doesn't read like WP:ADVERT, but this may be the intent of the page. — Timneu22 · talk 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've enhanced the article along the lines suggested above. Now it contains more information about the utility as well as having more pointers to relevant concepts/information. I believe at this point it does convey some useful information, but it's after all still about that particular utility, and how important the article (ie. is it important enough) is another matter of judgement. Sorry if I wasted anybody's time here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behcet (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sourcing attesting to notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Messenger Companion

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

Article lacks a reliable source. The only source mention in the article is a self-published source, a blog post by the author of this article (Damaster98 (talk · contribs)). Fails to comply with General Notability Guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with Windows Live Messenger would be a fair and valid outcome. Fleet Command (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (the official website of the subject of the article) has been added to the article. As such, this AfD and the reason behind this AfD is no longer valid. Thanks. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: I don't see it! Where is it? Fleet Command (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, there it is! A tiny little section titled messenger companion. Fleet Command (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: This article still fails to comply with GNG because Messenger Companion haven't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The source that you introduced is neither secondary nor significant coverage. After all, Wikipedia is not a mean of promoting Microsoft products. (Your blog post was secondary but was not other things.) Fleet Command (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG, no reliabe third party sources [8]. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible!!! I am sure I carried out step 3! 1000% sure. Perhaps a rollback has happened? Fleet Command (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any edit to the daily afd page in your list of contributions since June 5... Not a big problem, anyway (the bot is there for this). Tizio 10:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's discussion page
"Um, don't really do Wiki talk pages so this may be wrong, but I'd like to give my opinion. This article explained to me what the software was about, I would have had no idea and probably installed it had I not found this page. I suggest this page stays. -24.67.88.189 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
--Damaster98 (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: It's useful
  — Fleet Command (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens PLM Software

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: WP:SK. The topic is notable. In fact, it was the topic of an article today in Fortune: "Chrysler's engineering software shift: The automaker is embracing engineering software from Siemens where it once used Dassault. A case of open vs. closed?" As stated here, Siemens PLM is "one of the biggest suppliers in the PLM market", which was purchased in 2007 for $3.5 billion. Yes, the article needs cleanup and references, but it appears salvagable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin W Smith (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 23, 2010
- The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that, but when you type in the name in Google it only shows press releases. Which are not considered necessary sources by WP:COMPANY. The Forbes article you showed does not show up in the search. That article would be a correct source of notability.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also like to add that you found something that I didnt. Which is why this discussion board is in place, correct? I agree, if there is a source like Forbes that this article should stay.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this article extremely useful and informative when searching for background info about this company just now. To me, it doesn't read like an advertisement at all, most of the content concerns the company's history, and it is similar to articles I've read about other companies. I have no links to or interest in this company or its competitors.Kiwi Jake (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First let me say that I am employed by Siemens and used to work in the PLM Software business unit (I am now in the Industry Automation division responsible for PL and 3 other business units). If the main issue is references, I am sure we can find them, but I do need your advice: we have specifically avoided doind anything to any of our wikiepdia articles. We let them be whatever the community outside of Siemens PLM Software decides they should be. If we have the references, what is the right way to add them without creating the perception that we are tampering with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said it wrong; declaring your potential COI should probably be on your user page, but not necessarily your user talk page. WP:COI makes it fairly clear. In any case, I'm glad I could help. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only argument for deletion seems to be WP:RUBBISH. There's enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Acquisition news can be found from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/588 and http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/news/read/Siemens__UGS_Is_the_Merger_Working_32562. Seakskyk (talk) 8:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this AFD. It's been open for several weeks now, and I think the consensus is clear. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iwebkit

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

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [9]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 20:11, 26 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SiSoftware

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

Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product "Sandra". Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also obvious advertising for yet another business to business back-office tech company: a provider of computer analysis, diagnostic and benchmarking software. The flagship product, known as "SANDRA", was launched in 1997 and has become notably popular in its field..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiSoft should be an instantly recognizable name to anyone who has opened a computing magazine at some point during the past decade. The article needs improving. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SiSoft SANDRA. Their flagship product is notable in fact, however, I don't think the company deserves an article of its own for a single notable product. A redirect to an article on the product seems acceptable, too. Nageh (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Their flagship product is a well-known tool used for system diagnostics. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Some Wiki Editor. Also 2,070,000 hits on Google. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flesh out with information about their flagship product "Sandra". Coverage is not particularly in-depth, but is counterbalanced by the breadth. A google book search provides a lot sources that provide small writeups including Leo Laporte declaring it one his favourites. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For several years Sisoft-Sandra was one of those tools installed on my one or other pc. I don't know if Sisoft or Sandra is more worthy of an article but there is certainly some cultural and historical significance here.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2010 (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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCore

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by a SPA representing the company. I have not found significant coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yet another "content management system". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SPA junk. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:19, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contents restoration software

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

Appears to be an advertisement for the iCAT software program—there appear to be no Google hits for the others mentioned. PROD was contested by IP. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pretty obscure term for software that from what I can gather tracks assets...having a hard time understanding their website. Couldn't find enough information on Google to justify a Wikipedia article. If someone can show some media coverage about this category of software let me know. mboverload @ 05:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contents Restoration Software is any software that help facilitates the process of contents restoration. Leaving aside the triviality of this account, I'm not sure but that this is redundant to backup software, about which we already have an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:56, 27 June 2010 (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.

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. Rough consensus indicates that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Technologies

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

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

Non notable software company, Fails WP:CORP - the only coverage is not significant, most of it reproductions of press releases. Also adding XML Studio it's main product, article is promotional and also lack of coverage (even less than the links about may indicate as there looks like there are two products called XML Studio) so fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also note strongly promotional tone: Liquid XML Data Binding has grown in popularity due to its support from all the major languages and its ability to deal with complex schemas.... The free edition is extremely popular in schools and universities, its split code/diagram views speed the learning of the complex XSD standard.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator needs to read the guideline that an article isn't spam merely because its subject is a commercial body. Copyediting would be useful and if the time of copyeditors wasn't continually wasted in farcical AfDs, it might even get done. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but XML Studio reads like a sales brochure, product lacks any form of significant coverage and as a result fails WP:GNG, as for the company again no significant coverage, falis WP:GNG - I am unable to see what any amount of Copyediting could help with the notability of both the company and it's software. Codf1977 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little independent coverage so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVERT (software)

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

Non-notable software product with a very limited market and no showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. Contested proposed deletion. Part of a walled garden of promotional articles (see ARES Corporation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRISM (Project Management Software)). Referenced only to in-house sites, and Google News yields no helpful results. No indication that this software product "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Did you even look at the references? Because they are not all to in-house sites. Additionally, A lack of Gnews coverage is not a requirement of notability by Wikipedia. Additionally, these articles are not promotional in nature. I felt that the software had enough information to have their own articles. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the publisher's website, ARES Corporation: internal. A press release based story about the purchase of the product by the US Department of Defense: internal, as well as routine, and from an online trade website with small readership. A press release announcing a new version: internal. Yes, I looked at your sources, and looked for more myself, and came up with nothing that indicates that this product has the kind of long term historical interest to rate an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is a "press release based story"? That is a news article releasted by the Department of Defense. ARES Corporation does not own the Department of Defense and did not write that article. That is an external link and verifiable of it's notability. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Defense buys thousands of products every day. Simply being awarded a defense contract does not elevate a business or its product to historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no valid assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, no sources, and apparently part of a series by this editor to promote the products of ARES Corporation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 22 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebStarts

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

Borderline speedy (created by single purpose account); no reliable third-party sources to establish WP:CORP or WP:WEB notability (the blurb on KillerStartups appears to be a press release written by the company). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Well, I do agree from your perspective I look like an SPA account. I am not though, I am a web designer by profession and have used WebStarts several times. I thought that it was interesting that WebStarts (A prominent company in the industry with over 800,000 hosted sites) does not have a Wikipedia Article, so I created one. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I do know a reliable source when I see one.

1). Webstarts is clearly a valid competitor to companies such as Wix.com, Weebly, Webs.com (formerly FreeWebs), Yola, etc...

2). The KillerStartups review, was not a press release by Webstarts, but in fact a review by KillerStartups Employed Writer 'Fredi'^[1]

3). The AppAppeal review is undoubtedly written by AppAppeal (not a press release) AppAppeal states written by "AppAppeal Editor"^[2]

Connorrhule (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The KillerStartups entry is a trivial mention of the software, and does not cut it as a reference, I'm afraid. The AppAppeal review is more thorough but I doubt that "AppAppeal" is a reliable source - if it does qualify as a reliable source it would possibly be sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of keeps. Since competitors are mentioned, and wiki-linked, I'm not sensing a spam campaign. It could use some better sources establishing notability (I couldn't find any mentions in our library business databases). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is lacking in cited sources. Out of curiosity, at what point does a second-party source become "reputable"? I know that AppAppeal is definitely a go-to place for Web Applications and a highly trafficked site. Whether or not it conforms to Wikipedias "Reputable" source list or not I don't know. I consider the biggest sources such as news companies to be the most biased and unreliable personally... And I do not know how it works on Wikipedia, but shouldn't there be a reason other than not 100% reliable sources? Such as: the company doesn't really exist, cause if you do a little research into Webstarts you will find that it isn't something I am making up.

Just to clarify, if a source isn't considered "reputable" by Wikipedia, then the company doesn't exist according to them? I am not trying to be a pain, just curious about all of the little intricacies... If anyone else knows any "reliable" sources for Webstarts please post. Connorrhule (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and verifiable sourcing is a problematic area. You can start down the path of trying to unravel Wikipedia's byzantine group logic by checking out WP:Sources. It's easier to say what IS a verifiable source (e.g., New York Times) than what is not. Check out the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for some of the fun and games. I agree with you that there are topics (such as this one) that may be perfectly reasonable for a Wikipedia entry, but they don't rise to the level of being on the cover of Time Magazine. I get fierce headaches over this whole area. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Source to WebStarts Page. 100Best-Web-Hosting^[1] Connorrhule (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main review at AppAppeal is a bit gushing and sounds press release based to me. (Some of the user appended comments are far less enthusiastic...) We do look for news coverage - but not the sort based on press releases. Peridon (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Even if it sounds slightly "press-realease-ish" it doesn't mean that it is. AppAppeal is an unbiased news targeted for new internet apps (notice if it were a press release, there wouldn't be criticism as well). As for the comments, that is irrelevant, some good some bad... It doesn't get any more subjective then a comment. Connorrhule (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Question How does the deletion process on Wikipedia work? Who actually makes the final decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This promotionally is all about the features and advantages of using this run of the mill web hosting business. The references provided are all trade sites for the web hosting industry, and none of the coverage establishes that this one among the hundreds of similar businesses has any historic, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much for a community... Everybody just shuts everything down. How about you do a little bit of research, you will find that the company is definitely valid and does have technical significance. If you knew anything or have ever used Webstarts you would know it is not run of the mill, and that the technology is great. There are few competitors that are in the same sect of web hosting (listed above). Also, do you really think I am spamming? Seriously?

I'm done with this topic, I have put way to much energy into it. This is absurd. Connorrhule (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have just done a bit of research (six pages of ghits) while taking a break. Found only one review that didn't look PR based, and that was brief. The rest appeared to be PR based stuff, or user editable places (like here - Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia...), including the usual Facebook and similar, or blogs and forums. You've put work into the article. Fair enough. We put work into Wikipedia, too. I'm not accusing anyone of spamming. Just pointing out that I haven't found sources that fit the standards so far. Not every company gets an article. (Some don't want articles when they've got them. They find out that anyone can edit and stuff they don't like - and which is well sourced - gets put in.) It's not up to us to find the sources. If the article goes, keep a copy and try again when you've got the needed sources to show that an article is merited. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community. Just like a monastery is, for example. You try joining a monastery and then asking if you can bring your girlfriend in... Peridon (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for what you have done and your time. I will keep a copy if it does get deleted, and in the future post sources if I come across some. Connorrhule (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valid Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the article hasn't improved from its somewhat promotional tone ('you will'...) and still isn't supplied with what I consider adequate references, I'm going for delete. I expect we'll see it back - hopefully properly referenced and encyclopaedic. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established. I did a search for independent news about this company and came up empty. Seaphoto^Talk 02:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to establish notability, then add on the above issues... that's enough for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find independent reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:52, 3 July 2010 (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.

Software Proposed deletion

for occasional archiving

Digital Media Framework (via WP:PROD on 4 January 2008) Deleted
Harmonia research project (via WP:PROD on 27 December 2007) Deleted
Deleaker (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Live Messenger Companion}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siemens PLM Software}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTech Infosystems Inc.}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iwebkit}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiSoftware}}

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:34, 27 June 2010

Software

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd

HR-XML & HR-XML Consortium Inc.

SafeConsole

MSSolve

Zero Bug Release (ZBR)

Abaqus

NX Nastran

Parasolid

NEi Nastran

Fluent, Inc.

ANSYS, Inc

Ack (command-line utility)

FolderPlay

I-DEAS

Antispyware soft

Microsoft Fix it Center

DesktopWiki

ClipboardMultiSharer

Windows Live Messenger Companion

Siemens PLM Software

Iwebkit

SiSoftware

MediaCore

Contents restoration software

Liquid Technologies

AVERT (software)

WebStarts

Software Proposed deletion

Developers

Categories