Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeltaV


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

DeltaV
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No secondary sources, fails notability requirements. 208.69.57.189 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment if deleted, redirect to Delta-v (disambiguation) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It has info, its a widely used program, keep the article. --Dappl (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NOtability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The product is definitely notable, it's been used for process control by many notable companies and has won many industry awards  that can be cited. It meets WP:Notability, there are secondary sources that discuss it. The article just badly needs a rewrite to sound less like an advertisement and more like an encyclopedia article. Deletion isn't warranted, just a lot of maintenance tags. I've added some secondary sources to indicate its notability and will add more. —User2059 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both links you've cited are to the company itself. Not a good sign of independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The second link is a list of independent sources, all of which can be cited (for the purposes of this discussion I didn't list them all here). The fact that it's on the company's website doesn't negate its validity. The first link indicates that the product has widespread distribution which means that additional sources are likely to be found. —User2059 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2008 (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.