Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Simulation Technology (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Dassault Systèmes. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  07:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Computer Simulation Technology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wasn't notable in 2011, isn't notable now. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as it stands obvious promo with PRODUCT NAMES in capitals - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Guiding criteria here is WP:CORP which asks for significant coverage in secondary sources. There don't appear to be any at the moment -- even that Yahoo Finance piece at the bottom of the reflist is just a press release. If kept the article needs to be edited mercilessly to excise promotional material.  A  Train talk 10:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I notified WikiProject Germany; hopefully, they can comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep with option to discuss Redirect and merge on the talk page of the article I'm not the best choice of an editor to explain how to interpret the thousands of citations found at WP:BEFORE, but I know how to read the article and click on the Wikilink that tells me that the parent company is WP:LISTED.  As for the WP:DEL12 argument, I researched one of the the product names and that is the name of the product.  If there is some WP:MOS rule that allows product names to be down-cased, it could be cited, but it is not reasonable that an obscure MOS rule is evidence of promotionalism.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How convenient for you to imply that there's something improper about my nomination while simultaneously disqualifying yourself from specifying what. WP:LISTED states that being publicly traded does not make a company intrinsically notable. They should still meet the general criteria of significant coverage in multiple independent sources, which CST does not. In any case, that would be an argument for keeping Dassault Systèmes, not this recently acquired subsidiary. Joe Roe (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The company seems to focus on a very niche product. It seems to be pretty important in this particularly niche. There are plenty of forum discussions about its products as well as instructionary tutorials for some of their tools on some university webpages. Their products seem to have been also used for research papers (like in this Nature paper). However there is not a really a big independent reliable source talking about the company itself. All I could find is the following:
 * http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/25734-accuracy-in-simulation-with-cst-studio-suite-2016 (press release?)
 * http://www.tenlinks.com/news/PR/cst/081611_cosimulation.htm (seems to be some CAD portal)
 * http://www.designworldonline.com/cst-unveils-characteristic-mode-analysis-tool/ (press release)
 * http://www.elektroniknet.de/automotive/tools/artikel/93786/0/ (only significant non press release I could find)
 * http://www.highest.tu-darmstadt.de/foerdern/sponsoren_news/sponsoren_news_details_81664.de.jsp (University of Darmstadt cooperates with the company, they are appearently a spin off from the university some decades ago)
 * There are plenty of articles about the acquisition of the company by Dassault Systèmes
 * According to the WP guidelines the company fails notability for inclusion as a stand alone article. Since they have been now acquired by a different company anyway I would say Redirect to Dassault Systèmes and add/merge information there. Dead Mary (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2016 (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.