Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flux2D/3D


 * 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. sourcing has not been demonstrated and the new material has been reviewed and found wanting Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Flux2D/3D

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

IP Contested PROD - Software with no indication of notability. Codf1977 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Primary sources and sources that simply state Flux is the software used by the researchers. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. There needs to be a Wiki out there for software products, doesn't there? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Software is very well-known and used widely by engineers. Article is very informative and references are good Terveetkadet (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Terveetkadet. Blanchardb's comment is incongruous (IMO). The fact that the software is used in preparing so many scholarly articles demonstrates its notability. Unless Blanchardb is an expert in the subject field, I suggest deferring to the opinion of the researchers using the software. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the new references and links 3Dsoftware (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * General reflexions

> When i was young and we were still working with papers, we used to have an Encyclopædia Universalis at our library at school (more or less the same as the Encyclopædia Britannica). What is Universalis if some appears and some not? Wikipedia in english has the difference to be the common Enclyclopedia space worldwide (compare to Wikipedia in German, Spanish, Danish or French, etc addressing to a part of the community only) not only the one for north American people. One could notice that Wikipedia currently rather mention American software. Is it fair? Does it mean that we all need to work with the same tools? (of course we could think about famous work office suite...).

Of course, in my opinion, this 'Universalis' questions also applies for history facts, actors, philosophy, etc.

> About the comment that the software is used by searcher (which are only about 20% of the users in total), I was wondering:

- Does researchers works has to be hidden? Isn’t it part of the scientist community knowledge? Isn’t part of the of the knowledge to share on Wikipedia?

- Wikipedia prefers to link to .org web sites… which mean we’ll specially link to research works and publications. Otherwise information may not be trivial if linking to industrial users?

- In general, electrical devices optimisation (= energy saving) is an interesting debate and people may be concern with such topics and tools.

=> Shall i rather suppress those links to searchers work (I see some other simulation tools only mention 1 or 2 reference, which could limit verifiable and non-trivial information level).

> About the « as advertising » mention, i’m a bit surprise when i see some other sotware articles (sofware or company names). Are they advertisement? (if yes this would not be fair). Have they all reliable and verifiable and non-trivial references? What do they describe: technical features? History ? Functions? Group organisation? Applications? (which may be a good link to many applications in Wikipedia).

''What is advertisement and what is not? What is useful to show in the Encyclopedia for the reader?''    3Dsoftware (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Software appears to be the subject of multiple legitimate academic studies. Article is informative and not too spammy. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG, it is not the subject of any of the references, it is merely mentioned in some of them. To quote "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." None of these sources address the software directly, they mention it was used in whatever piece of research they are actually discussing. This source doesn't even mention it... I'd put strong, but I think it unnecessary. Bigger digger (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Bigger digger (talk), I suggest you look at the G2ELAB website again. Search for "Flux". Here is a quote from it, "Flux is a research and commercial software dedicated to modeling of electrical devices. It is the result of a 25 years collaboration between the team and the CEDRAT compagny. Based on finite elements method, it is widely used all over the world, in many universities and compagnies." (In this quote, "the team" is G2ELAB.) I hope this helps you reconsider your (unnecessary to use strong) delete. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (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.