Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PragmaDev Process


 * 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. Disregarding the suspicious votes (and noting that Elmidae's response to Manu31415's keep basically refuted the argument), I see a consensus to delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

PragmaDev Process

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable editor program; all sources are primary, independent uptake (let alone coverage) appears not to exist. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: At this point no less than three single-purpose accounts with no other contributions (and no valid Keep reasons) have been canvassed here. Marked. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I couldn't find any indication of notability or coverage during my search. - Flori4nK T A L K  00:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Pragmatically content could have been usefully added to PragmaDev Studio by creator who perhaps should be aware better references are needed for an article to stay in mainspace.  Not really needing of a redirect/merge unless there's demonstratable need for the cats as should be adequately searchable.  If something substantial found with an adequate WP:THREE not adverse to keeping.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is entirely based on two independent scientific papers that have been published following peer reviews: Automatic Verification of BPMN Models at ERTS2 Conference and Verification of BPMN models at CSD&M Conference. These two publications are reliable and independent sources that establish notability of the work. Even though the work was meant to rely to PragmaDev Studio at start, it turned out to be completely independent as explained in the papers. That is why this would not fit in the PragmaDev Studio page. --Manu31415 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Two papers by the same team which is affiliated with PragmaDev (yes, it's all in the article header ). Nope. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Additionally this tool interest is asserted by a well known editor as PragmaDev and MEGA International Srl. have signed an Alliance partnership agreement in 2020 and PragmaDev Process is to be integrated in the V3 version of HOPEX. - Narkoa 18:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — Narkoa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I had the opportunity to use PragmaDev Process in the past for industrial use cases. This tool is independent of PragmaDev Studio, do not provide the same services nor is usefull for the same purposes. PragmaDev Process provides features I have never encountered in another tool until now like evaluating a BPMN process runnability (compliance to BPMN execution standards) or identifying unreachable path in a set of BPMN processes. To my knowledge, PragmaDev Process had been presented on its own in 2 different conferences : 10th CSD&M Paris and 10th ERTS Toulouse


 * Again, this does nothing to solve the lack of in-depth, independent coverage from multiple sources . These two conference presentations are already referenced in the article, and they are authored by people affiliated to the developer. This kind of material can be used to source facts, but not to establish notability. First the world at large has to take notice, THEN there can be a WP article. It does not work the other way round. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So we did it the right way: the scientific papers were to notice the world at large, so now there can be a WP article. Also remember "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".--Manu31415 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The product is an outcome of a research project financed by the French Army. The articles describe the results of this project, and they have been co-written by people non-affiliated to PragmaDev. These publications are not basic articles, they are scientific papers which have been reviewed and approved by independent experts. That establishes notability as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, that is verifiable, reliable, and independent sources. --Mihal Brumbulli (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Mihal Brumbullia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Authored by development team, thus not independent coverage, thus does not demonstrate notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it is written by the development because it is brand new research work, the publication are a few months old meaning they had to be written a year ago. This is not the point, the point is that two sets of independent and anonymous experts have validated both papers covering two different aspects of the research. So we believe the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We also believe we have brought something new to BPMN. If there is no article on PragmaDev Process it can not be listed on Comparison of Business Process Model and Notation modeling tools and that would be a lack of completeness in that list.--Manu31415 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CSC№2, there is no requirement that every item in a list have its own article for inclusion in the list. Even if there were, this does nothing to establish notability. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: PragmaDev Process is an unique state-of-the-art IDE for business process design. Furthermore it is commercially available. The two scientific papers cited clearly describe the tool. Independent venues cite the tool, sadly the articles are in French only. Furthermore, the user base of the tool might not have the liberty and/or the culture to discuss openly the tools they use (ie. aerospace, defense industry).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciprian.teodorov (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)  — Ciprian.teodorov (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Both sources are press releases; the first slightly reformulated, the second raw. Not independent coverage. And if the user base can't publish about the tool, then we do not have the sources to write about it either. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A new press release has just announced a partnership between PragmaDev and MEGA International Srl.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: This discussion is attracting many editors who are not signing their comments, have few other edits, and who all seem to have nothing but praise for the article's subject, but little to say on its notability. I concur with other editors, there is no reason to think this subject is notable, and arguments being made by the aforementioned editors have so far been unconvincing. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: After reading through this AfD led one eyebrow to rapidly approach my hairline; I have taken the liberty of filing an SPI. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (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.