Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envision (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. Consensus seems to be that notability criteria are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Envision (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not attempt to establish why the subject is important. Does not satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. Its 3 sources do not classify as reliable, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I tried moving it to draft so it could be worked on but the author soon moved it back to article space. Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Everyday I learn something new on Wikipedia, today I learned that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.", I started writing this article while considering that it's subject is notable based on these master thesis, I'm sorry Charmk (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Close as a premature AfD, without prejudice to re-opening it in the future.
 * I'd be happy to see academic theses used as sources (after all, look at REST and CSS) provided that they are both credible as sources (i.e. competent work from a competent establishment, with appropriate levels of supervision and peer review) and also that they have something towards "significant scholarly influence".  Now I don't require them to be Einstein's 1905 papers. I don't even need them to meet the influencing standards of REST or CSS.  They should be adequate to source and WP:Verify what they're being used to cite, we don't need anything more than that.
 * They're also an irrelevance. The problems with this article are because it fails CSD &sect;A7 – there is no article here. There is nothing in this article of any encyclopedic significance. There is no content, just a bullet-point list which is so trivial that it looks like marketing copy from a 1980s Byte article. We learn nothing about Envision, we learn nothing as to why yet another IDE is worth recording, why Envision was created, what it might do beyond that which every IDE does. We don't even have these five sources (which ought to add up to something!) used here, they're just listed without inline citations. The article is empty and worthless.
 * That said, AfDing an article that was created from scratch less than an hour ago is not good practice for AfDing. There is no need for that (we have to have some patience!) and if an article was so bad that it needed to be deleted for hygiene reasons, we have CSD for that.  This could, and should, have been created differently.  Create it as a draft (in draftspace, userspace, offline or whatever) and only move it to mainspace when it can at least pass CSD &sect;A7.  Or else don't AfD it after an hour, watch it and give it a few days to see if the draft at least gets finished, then judge. As such, this AfD should be closed.
 * Maybe drafting this would be best. Or at least finish it (AfD will do nothing for some days, so there's a chance). The article as is shouldn't be here in a week (I'll CSD it myself). It needs to be either better, or gone, or out of mainspace until it is. But AfDs after an hour are just wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will take on board what you're saying about haste. FYI, my guide to this process is the NPP flowchart, which does not mention waiting, and says to use A7 only in the case of "Is the article a person, individual animal, non-educational organisation, or organised event?", and which thus led me to AfD; though I did first try to give it a chance by draftifying. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the useful information Charmk (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No change after a week, so delete Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I do not think draftifying will help, as there does seem to be enough for an article. we need material from other than the author of the program.  Master's theses, fwiw, are a very different thing from Ph.D theses--even from a school as important as ETH-. They usually amount to expanded class projects. But  A7 would not apply, neither to the draft or the article. A7 includes organizations, but not products, or software. There have been various discussions of this over the years, and the reason remains: this is something that no single admin should attempt to judge.That's why we're here at afd  DGG' ( talk ) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: A masters thesis doesn't establish notability. While the association with a masters program perhaps lends some clout, unless the thesis itself has significant scholarly influence, then it's nothing more than your garden variety primary source without notable coverage. (And is therefore inappropriate for inclusion.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 17 July 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.