Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mps.br


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn, closed by nominator following promise by an editor to add references etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mps.br

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Entity does not appear to meet notability guidelines. There are no refs, and one independent external link, to an entity called "Point Technology", which appears to be an online-only entity (it's in Portuguese so it's hard to be sure). Can't find any refs online. It doesn't help that it's a pretty poor article, and in substandard English too, although these are content issues.

However, CMMI looks kind of technical so maybe I'm missing something. It could be notable in Brazil. But if it is, I don't see any evidence for that. Herostratus (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This appears to be a machine translation of pt:Melhoria de Processos do Software Brasileiro with a few of the sentences moved around. I've used my rudimentary Portuguese to read these sources and they all seem to be either passing mentions or press releases. Even if this is notable we wouldn't be losing much by deleting this, because the original will still be available for anyone who wants to do a better translation. For some time I've thought that we could integrate better with the other language Wikipedias by having soft redirects where an article exists in another language but not on English Wikipedia, both to guide multilingual readers to the information and to help editors who want to translate articles. Such a redirect would usually be better than a machine translation. Maybe I'll get around to drawing up a proposal some time. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. In many cases, I would rather have the source and a guide to machine-translating it myself (with perhaps a sentence or two in English describing the entity in general terms) than a straight-up machine translation. At least with the source available you can sometimes tease the meaning from individual words in questionable passages, even if you aren't fluent in the language. With only the machine translation, you are stuck with the one meaning that the machine gave to the word. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a Brazilian government-developed software process maturity model, similar to CMMI (developed in the USA), but aimed at smaller software organizations. There are many GBooks and GScholar references in English. Did the nominator or commentator search them at all? Does the nominator have any familiarity with CMMI ("However, CMMI looks kind of technical so maybe I'm missing something")? Yes, I think you're missing the whole point. I respectfully request you do a GScholar search and read at least the IEEE article . I hope that will convince you to withdraw your nomination. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I decline your request. I do new page patrol and many other tasks on the Wikipedia, and there are many new pages, and I don't have to time to learn a foreign language, become conversant in obscure technology areas, or necessarily find and provide references for each new page created, and that is why I have brought to the attention of the larger community via this AfD. And you are exactly the kind of person I was hoping to find, but there's no need to cop an attitude. Since you are conversant in this area, perhaps you could add the appropriate references into the article (rendering the article into readable English would also be a welcome service). If this is done, the article will no doubt have long and fruitful life. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to do this for several articles that have been nominated, especially software articles. The problem for me is that it takes a lot less time for you or someone else to nominate an article than it does for me to add references and fix it. My frustration is that I see so many valuable (notable) topics nominated where I wish the nominator would take a less drastic action. I can't do this much for several articles in 7 days! &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well that's different. Maybe I should have just tagged the article, and I considered doing that. I didn't, because 1) tags can just sit there for years, and 2) it looked like an advertisement for a company (and was so tagged). I'll close the AfD. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 18 October 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.