Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euclid (computer program) (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Euclid (computer program)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Kept 3 years ago with promise of sourcing that never came. On closer inspection, the sources from the last AFD are press releases or directory listings. Removing prod since you can't prod what's already at AFD. Still seems to fail notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The package is notable, more sources are readily available and AFD is still not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Right now, you've just cited three arguments to avoid all at once. How is the package notable? Where are the sources? I couldn't find any, and I just said the ones from the last AFD are unusable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But what you say does not seem reliable. You claim that the sources previously presented are press releases or directory listings.  This is false because, for example, source 2 presented by JulesH in the previous AFD was a conference paper published by the Institut für Computergraphik und Algorithmen at Vienna University of Technology.  My own searching quickly indicated that there were satisfactory sources and so the topic is notable.  I shall not exert myself to supply details of these because you have the off-putting habit of claiming the credit for work done by other editors in such cases.  If you want someone to work upon the article then you might try using the rescue tag or the magic word. Warden (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep- Sources are in the previous AFD. That they are not in the article is not the article's fault, and is not reason for deletion. As stated above, AFD is not for cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you even reading what I write? I said THE SOURCES IN THE LAST AFD ARE NOT USABLE IN MY OPINION. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Of the four links in the previous AFD, two have gone away, one is a copy of a press release, and one is a conference paper. If that were all, then they would not add up to notability.  But the discussion is of course not confined to those sources alone, as CW points out.  Here are some more  8 occurrences, including "Euclid is one of Europe's primary CAD products"; ; ;  ; ; ; .  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional:  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Multiple peer-reviewed sources specifically about this topic consitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2011 (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.