Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publicon


 * 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. Be careful of what notability means. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Publicon

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

According to the information from the publishers, Wolfram Research is transforming the way the world publishes technical documents with Wolfram Publicon. It really is a stretch of the imagination to say Publicon has transformed the way the world publishes technical documents. The truth is, Publicon has had no significant impact in the way technical documents are published.

Publicon was introduced as version 1.0 in 2004, updated to version 1.0.1 in 2005 and has not been updated for 4 years, which I believe indicates even its producers have given up with Publicon. A tag on the Wikipedia entry saying the article does not cite any references has been there for two years. There is currently only one reference to MacUser, which is not a scientific journal.

For all practical purposes, Publicon is a failed software product. The most notable thing about Publicon is that it is produced by the same company that produces Mathematica. I do not believe that itself is sufficient to make Publicon sufficiently notable to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Drkirkby (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment being a failed product does not mean something is not notable, see Edsel or Zune. What makes it not notable is a lack of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources, see WP:NOTE for guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Full review in Macuser:, brief reviews in JACS , & EContnet [Articles] ,  Still being recommended by major publishers: , including APS & ACS   continued distribution by major specialized suppliers  ,   support from MathType  . DGG (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your APS & ACS publishers example only makes reference to a Wolfram Research web site in Japan. The publishers do not accept a native Publicon format file. - only the Latex format that can be generated by Publicon, but can be generated by any number of other programs.


 * You do appear to have found something on the BioMed Central site, I will give you that.


 * The support from MathType comment is interesting if you read the bottom of the page you quoted. Details about how MathML is used vary from application to application, and at this time we only have basic information about the MathML support in Publicon. If you can tell us more about how best to use MathType to work with Publicon, we would love to hear from you. Please send questions, comments and suggestions to interop--at--dessci.com.


 * The fact Publicon is sold by suppliers selling Mathematica is no great surprise.


 * I can find little reference to Publicon myself and know of nobody using it in academic circles. It is certainly not transforming the way the world publishes technical documents as Wolfram Research claim, but obviously that is not relevant to Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any Publicon mailing lists, newsgroups or anything else to suggest Publicon is used by many. Hence I do not think it is 'notable'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.42.15 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(Oops, I forgot to sign my comment Drkirkby (talk) 10:30, 19 May 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.