Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AeroText


 * 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 redirect to Rocket Software. T. Canens (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

AeroText

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Software that seems to fail WP:NSOFT. Prod, deleted, recently REFUNDed. There are a few mentions in passing in various academic works, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage, at best the software gets a paragraph length summary in in few papers. Google Scholar reports a total of about ~200 papers using this keyword. This suggests it is very niche, and we can hardly argue it had significant impact on science; for comparison, NVivo software returns 200,000 GScholar mentions and SPSS, 4 million, so it's clear we can't say this software had any major impact - few dozen scholars using it is, well, the very definition of something that's way too niche to be encyclopedic. AeroText has no reviews I can find of, no in-depth coverage, and its use does not suggest it can be said to have made any significant impact. The entry is mostly unreferenced and spammy, and I don't think there is anything to rescue. Such minor software can, at best, be described, in a short summary, in some list-like article, but I don't think we have a list of content analysis software. There is a List of text mining software, which currently does not even mention this soft, but I have no objection to a soft deletion that would redirect there, and add a few lines of text from the article there, through the lead is not very informative and the rest of the content is unreferenced/spammy, so... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 05:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep REFUND-requestor here. I guess it really comes down to where you think the threshold/cutoff should be. In my mind, ~200 papers mentioning it, a few papers giving a paragraph-length summary, that's significant enough for inclusion. In your mind, it isn't. Here are the sources I mentioned when requesting REFUND:
 * I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: The first source above (Taniar) may be OK but perhaps someone ought to confirm that.  The second (Taylor) is obviously WP:PRIMARY so I'm not going further.  Someone may have to spend their quite possibly to be wasted time clearing up the article resolving dead links and converting further readings to inline cites and identifying best sources per WP:THREE and at this moment this is for the bin anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In my searches I have found a coverage on an unreliable blog, a press release on BusinessWire, and passing mentions in books. Analyzing the references offered here:
 * 1. Not WP:SIGCOV. Literally a one longer sentence about which main components are.
 * 2 Not able to read and seems there are WP:PRIMARY issues per djm-leighpark.
 * 3. Not mentioned in the preview from what I can see, not even once.
 * 4. Seems like a buy to read case of a thing. So nothing.
 * 5. And nothing again from the small preview. Notability says "must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I don't see that here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my keep !vote above, but given that everyone else who has commented thus far has favoured deletion, I'd be willing to support the nominator's suggestion of a merge/redirect to a brief mention in List of text mining software as a compromise. SJK (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem would seem to be that the criteria for the list in that article list per WP:CSC would seem to be members have to have their own article as I can't see an entry that that doen't have its own article (there may actually be one that has sneaked it). This would be a redirect with history not a mergeDjm-leighpark (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Another option could be to redirect it to Rocket Software (Rocket Software are its current owners), and a brief mention of it there. SJK (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added a brief mention there. SJK (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect (To section with history : Rocket Software). Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rocket Software per Djm-leighpark. Changing my vote from delete to redirect. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.