Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribon

Tribon

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

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

Tribon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded this unreferenced article with " Unreferenced software, no indication of passing GNG/WP:NSOFT, BEFORE does not show any reliable sources, no valid redirect/merge target.". User:Kvng deprodded with a note about [1] and hits in Google Schholar. Unfortunately, my GS results are swamped by hits in Chinese which I am having trouble analyze, but the few I looked with Google Translate seem to be passing mentions and/or of dubious reliability. As for the coverage in the Offshore (magazine), it is interesting (1995, so a bit less spamy than some random new website). There are few paragraphs about it, and I would be even willing to accept it as borderline reliable and in-depth, but I am having trouble locating anything else to back it up. Can anyone see if they can find more good sources and rescue this? Kvng's source suggests this could be improved beyond the current terrible, unreferenced stub that hasn't seen much improvement in 15 years... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Here are some Scholar hits for papers with Tribon in the title: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting find, but can anyone access the text of those articles to verify they contain in-depth discussion of the program? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • To me, it is clear from abstracts that they contain in-depth discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Plausuble, but I have seen papers which mention a term in the title/abstract and totally fail to discuss it in the article's body. You found enough sources that some probably contain in-depth discussion, but we are also dealing with a Chinese journal, and those, internationally, have a pretty bad reputation. Whether this journal is RS or not, I am unsure, I am leaning towards yes, but further opinions would be nice. Ping User:Randykitty re journal reliability? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To enable further discussion of the sources identified by Kvng and the article's overall notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Merge into Aveva which bought Tribon over 15 years ago. It does not need separate article if there is so little available source material about its history. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The source in the Aveva article as well as several from other sources do say that Tribon was bought out (or to be bought out), but I'm just wondering what this first Google Search hit means, as it makes a comparison between Tribon and Aveva arguing that Aveva is better, and its copyright date is 2013, which Wayback Machine supports. Just curious as to what the explanation could be, since it's a live webpage. KB11001 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Merge (preferred) or delete, I agree with LizardJr8. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)