Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phasebuilder


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Phasebuilder

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

WP:NN software product. Borderline advert. Unable to find G-hits beyond promotional pieces. No G-news hits. Failed when sole author removed tag. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources writing about this product. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Delete per Whpq, can't find secondary coverage. Written like an advert. FingersOn  Roids♫  19:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP AND REFER TO RELEVANT EXPERTS this is a software tool that is used in control engineering. it's a technical, specialist subject; we need people who write about such things to submit their opinions on this.  it's not reasonable to just categorize it as "general nn software".  granted, the copy is a bit nnpov/advert-ish, BUT consult with whichever wikipedians work on the relevant subjects.  inappropriate to delete based on uninformed (non expert) opinions (no offense intended to the previous commentors). Lx 121 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This nomination is the referral, it does not need to go anywhere else. It is being challenged for notability, not for technical correctness, experts are not needed (but welcome).  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have done some PLC design work in the past but have never heard of this - although that is not conclusive, I don't have extensive experience in the field.  However, it is not often that I do a Google search on a borderline product and get only 12 hits.  Five of those are Logicon, its subsidiaries and directories listing it.  Two are Wikipedia and mirrors.  Three are broken or dead and one is an exhibition stands listing.  So, an article written from the sources would be able to state two verifiable facts: the product was once demonstrated at an exhibition and it has a Wikipedia article.  I think we can bring that down to one shortly.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello critics! I can't seem to talk to you (or don't know how). Very frustrating! This technique of developing a control system is unique. It's just like SIEMENS or Wonderware that are also on Wikipedia (amongst others) but has an ability to print design documents from a control system in word. Please don't have it deleted as I've gone to a lot of trouble to explain how it fits into the Automation Industry. Davmaher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmaher (talk • contribs) 12:39, 16 March 2009
 * Reply - the key thing that is needed is reliable sources covering the product to establish notability. This would be things such as independently written in-depth articles in trade journals and publicaitons.  Note that press releases or material that are just rephrasings of press releases don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the sources are still only the maker's own websites. The author has now read this page and is aware of the reason for proposed deletion, but nothing has been done.  I don't believe that there is likely to be any suitable sources found.  Davmaher, to answer your question about contacting editors: you do that by leaving a message on their talk pages - for instance mine is User talk:Spinningspark - but you are better off leaving your comments here where everyone can see them.  Better still, find some quality sources and prove us all wrong.  We appreciate you have put a lot of work into the article but Wikipedia requires notability to be proven with reliable sources.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:43, 18 March 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.