Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModeFRONTIER


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ModeFRONTIER

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

Software article with no indication of notability, no references. Sorry for the waste of time but someone removed the PROD template when adding a link to a case study on the software creator's own website, doing nothing to alleviate the outstanding issue. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article doesn't meet WP:V. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Skittish keep. A few Google news mentions (mostly about the company), but a lot of mentions in Google scholar make me think this is an important piece of software in fluid dynamics (which I know very little about). Pcap  ping  14:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: also mentioned in a couple of books (which are not conference proceedings) about marine/maritime stuff . Pcap ping  15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC) I was wrong, all the books are conference proceedings or journals. Pcap  ping  20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Retract I'm realizing that I need to consult Google Scholar for topics like this. The evidence there is substantial, I think. Tag the article for lack of citations. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still recommend deletion of this article for now, and as such the AFD should remain open. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Pcap  ping  14:42, 29 November 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) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs clean-up and technical dumb-down as this is a great sleep-aid presently. It would be nice to beef up the lede to state it's widely used and by whom but over a dozen book hits leads me to think it's notable enough and nearly 200 scholar hits suggest there is enough independent sourcing available.  -- Banj e  b oi   14:21, 5 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.