Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProDG (software)


 * 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. Given that this discussion has now been running for over a month, I believe that no consensus is the only viable option. We have three different options that have been put forward in the discussion - Merge, keep and delete. All sides make sensible arguments for their position. As such, there is no consensus that shines through.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

ProDG (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Corporate product puffery. It's a set of very run-of-the-mill development tools with no evident distinctive features, notability or referencing. See also SN Systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I can't find any proper references. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My initial impression is Keep - Meets WP:GNG. I see plenty of RS sources on just a very brief check (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The article is in sad shape of course, and should be expanded. -Thibbs (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I looked at the five sources mentioned by Thibbs above, and believe they could be based entirely on company announcements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course that's just a drop in the bucket, though. There's coverage of this product suite in IGN, Edge Magazine, Ars Technica, etc. etc. etc. The commentary may be based on company announcements in some cases but it's not merely publishing first-party press releases. At worst I'd say merge this into SN Systems until it becomes large enough to split out on its own. I don't see any point in outright deleting it. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see SN Systems merged into ProDG, provided that we can get some independent (i.e. not press releases) sourcing such that games developers regard ProDG as an important and distinctive tool in their working lives, comparable to Visual Basic or the JDK, and rather more than merely a-n-other C compiler. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SN Systems merged into ProDG or ProDG merged into SN Systems? Right now the SN Systems article appears to be longer and in better shape than the ProDG article. I'd merge ProDG into SN Systems if merging is indeed required. There's no requirement that ProDG be very notable ("comparable to Visual Basic," etc.). Normal "Wikipedia Notable" (significant coverage by multiple reliable third party sources) should be sufficient. And third party sources that merely use press releases as their source material are not the same thing as citing press releases directly. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, we're working on the ProDG page offline, taking on board the feedback here and generally on Wikipedia. The ProDG page has been left to stagnate too long, and as it stands, needs to be addressed. If we can hold off merging for now, we'll get the first draft up this week and hopefully you folks can assist us making it as suitable as we can. SnClee (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge SN into ProDG. Any notability that SN Systems have is inherited from ProDG. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Relister's comment I relisted not due to insufficient discussion, but to give some additional time for article improvement. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge SN into ProDG There's definitely enough material here for a NOTEable article, but I don't think having two articles serves any real purpose. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – clearly notable from the references. SN Systems is a bit more stubby so a merged article would not be too long but this on it's own is notable. A merge, and which way it should be done, can therefore be decided later.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable; all sources are promotional.  Mini  apolis  16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into SN Systems. If it is easier, merge SN into ProDG (software) and move. One combined article much more likely to survive the next challenge. Both would need much work, alas. Generally companies can sometimes come out with a second product, or change product names, which is why I would lean to keeping the company name as the primary topic. But do not feel strongly if there is some other consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (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.