Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOCADI


 * 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. 18 days and 2 relists is long enough. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

MOCADI

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software. (Now neutral per TimothyRias, still think the discussion should go on however) Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: The piece of scientific software seems to be taken quite seriously be the community. Enough so to warrant articles about improvements to the code in peer- reviewed journals like . Of course, this articles are written by the authors of the package, but apparently the journals thought the software to be notable enough to place the articles. If it is good enough for them it should definitely be good enough for WP.
 * The first view pages of hits on google also show:
 * Numerous mentions of use of this software for scientific research.
 * Somebody mentioning knowledge of this code as a skill on his CV.
 * So, I'd see the stuff is notable. Now the article itself is useless stub that desperately needs expanding, but that is a different matter. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:44, 21 August 2009 (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.