Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Developer Studio


 * 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. Despite the extensive (and I do mean extensive) discussion here, there is no consensus to delete or keep the article at this time. Merger / redirect do not have a consensus either, although specific discussions can still be held at the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Real Time Developer Studio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recently created product article that is non-notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note The creator of the article created "PragmaDev RTDS" in March 2012, which is the same product. That was speedily deleted as a copyvio. This is not a copyvio and so that does not apply, however it appears that the creator may have an undisclosed association with the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Author I am Emmanuel Gaudin the author of this article and PragmaDev founder and CEO. I am also part of several program committees such as the SDL Forum conference, the UML & AADL conference, the INCOSE IS2014. My point was to get Real Time Developer Studio in the list of UML tools because that is where it belongs. This required the entry to be linked to a product page, so I did create it.

The tool Real Time Developer Studio project won the French ministry of research national competition on innovative technologies in 2001. The tool is used by large companies such as Alcatel-Lucent, Airbus, or Renault. The tool is integrated with: That should demonstrate enough notability for the tool to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)
 * the European Space Agency TASTE framework,
 * the Verimag IF model checking tools,
 * the LAAS TINA model checking tool,
 * PragmaList, a common lab with French national research center CEA LIST.

rickreed (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep

There is nothing undisclosed as far as I can see. The author is who he claims to be be,

As CEO of PragmaDev the author has an interest in Real Time Developer Studio (RTDS), but I do not understand why that should stop him adding RTDS as an article so that it can be referenced from other pages: he is probably the best person to initiate an article on the tool. It is not clear what the rationale for deleting the article is. The tool has existed for a number of years, is commercially successful, has been referenced in a number of published papers, is quite widely used, and therefore in my opinion is notable should be included in Wikipedia.

End of suggestion from rickreed (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Rickreed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

--Edel Sherratt (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) The author is founder and CEO of PragmaDev, and has an interest in PragmaDev Real Time Developer Studio (PragmaDev RTDS). It is very useful indeed to have an article that can be referenced from pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_and_Description_Language and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools and the author is the person best placed to initiate such a page.
 * Keep

The tool is cited in a number of reliable, independent publications, including End of suggestion from Edel Sherratt (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Edel Sherratt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Kuhn, T.; Gotzhein, R.; Webel, C., "Model-Driven Development with SDL – Process, Tools, and Experiences" in Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Eds.Nierstrasz, Oscar; Whittle, Jon; Harel, David; Reggio, Gianna, Springer LNCS 4199, October 2006
 * Hassine, M.B.; Grati, K.; Ghazel, A.; Kouki, A., "Design and Implementation of AIS Link Layer Using SDL-RT," Systems Conference, 2008 2nd Annual IEEE, vol., no., pp.1,5, 7-10 April 2008
 * Serge Haddad; Fabrice Kordon; Laurent Pautet; Laure Petrucci, "Distributed Systems: Design and Algorithms", Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The WP:SPAs have had their say as I expected that they would. None of them can support that the product is in any way notable. It certainly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Unless someone can show that this product has 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject, the article should be deleted. Its usefulness on Wikipedia is not a subject for debate as Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This looks like significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Manu31415 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to the comment A number of links with major research centers in France and in Europe have been listed above. In addition, the following publications make reference to the tool:
 * SAM 2010 proceedings Springer LNCS
 * SDL 2009 proceedings Springer LNCS
 * Models 2006 conference Springer LNCS
 * Distributed systems Wiley 2013
 * CASE 2011 Simposio Argentino de Sistemas Embedidos
 * ENSEEIHT school of engineering handout on embedded systems
 * Telecom SudParis school of engineering handout on SDL
 * Comment They were only mentions of the product so not "significant coverage". What we have is proof that it exists but not that it's notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" would an article about the product that is detailed. That would ideally be something other than a how-to discussion and be more along the lines of describing its features or the benefits of its use or even a case study of how it was used to solve a problem. Academic papers that reference it in a single sentence or list it as a tool used or the like are clearly not what constitutes significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to the comment Real Time Developer Studio is based on SDL and UML standard languages so the basic features of editing the models are closely related to the languages and are not discussed directly. The two handouts I refer to are used to teach modeling, and practical exercises are done with Real Time Developer Studio tool. Since the class can not be about a tool but a technology RTDS is only quoted. There are 50 universities using RTDS in class but these are the only two handouts available on line. Again, because RTDS is based on standard languages, research papers only discuss advanced topics such as simulation and test generation (CASE 2011), or code generation (SDL 2009 and SAM 2010). It is not a single sentence in these cases.
 * What can I say ? Having a tool used in 50 universities, discussed or quoted as a reference in international specialized conferences, integrated with several national research lab technologies and within an ESA framework would not be significant coverage ?! And therefore should not be listed in the List of UML tools ?! I did not know half of the tools in that list and I do not understand why tools like Software Ideas Modeler or StarUML have more significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject than RTDS. Manu31415 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you have nothing to help it meet WP:GNG or any other relevant notability criteria. If you'd like to nominate other articles for the same reason, that would help, but your argument falls in-line with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I did make my point, with the support of Rick Reed who is ITU-T rapporteur for SDL and Edel Sherratt who is a researcher in computer science. I think your questions are legitimate but we replied to them. It looks like you actually already made up your mind in the first place and nothing we can say will make any difference.Manu31415 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

--LaurentDoldi (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Pragmadev RTDS is the only independent tool commercially available, supporting the widely used ITU-T languages SDL and MSC. Pragmadev is a small French company (about 20 people I suppose), INDEPEDENT and existing since 2001. The two main other companies making commercial SDL tools (Verilog and Telelogic) have been acquired by Rational, now part of IBM.
 * Keep

I believed that the spirit of Wikipedia was to support small companies or indivuals rather than large capitalist groups governed by quick term profits only. But when I read the comments in favour of deletion, it seems that it is no longer the case.

Remenber that EVERY Airbus aircraft in service in 2014 executes around 300.000 lines of C code generated automatically from SDL (and ASN.1) models developed with RTDS, either in its ATSU computers (Air Traffic Services Unit) on A320, A330 and A340 families, ot in ATC applications running on modular avionics on A380, A400M and A350.

Also if billions of users are using their mobile phones, it is partly thanks to SDL, which has been used in ETSI (European Standards Telecommunications Institute) to help developing the GSM and 3G etc. specifications, then used by companies such as Motorola, Alcatel, Mitsubishi etc. to develop mobile phones and network infrastructures.

I have written 3 books on SDL, two published by myself, and one published by Wiley (http://www.wileyeurope.com/remtitle.cgi?isbn=0470852860). I have been working 32 years as a software engineer for the aircraft and telecom industry, using SDL and other languages, so you can trust me. See my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-doldi/6/470/b3 — LaurentDoldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sam Sailor Sing 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete The technical domain addressed by this tool is very specialized. There can only be relevant coverage in academic publications, and the best ones in this domain are the ones listed above. Wikipedia would definitely gain from including such specialized technologies in its pages. Manu31415 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is highly specialized software, which deserves an article. It clearly passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 17:44 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it passes GNG. Do you have that information handy? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that this topic is already listed in the encyclopedia, so "delete" !votes  are not policy based.  On the other hand, "keep" is not a policy-based argument given our WP:V policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment From where does the idea arise,, that delete !votes are not policy based, when the topic is listed? Sam Sailor Sing 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I wasn't going to !vote until I saw this    .  See WP:BITE.  As per my previous comment, I am aware that this is not a policy-based keep argument.  However, the statements about the long term notability of this topic made in this discussion and shown in the article are sufficient given the circumstances, and also based on information in the article Specification and Description Language.  I am willing to change my !vote to one that is policy based, including Incubate, if discussion evolves.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion has not evolved, and I have reviewed the arguments. I'm striking out the !vote here and added a new !vote below.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment long-term what? It has never been notable. The fact that no one has nominated it for deletion before is simply dumb luck. There is no discussion at Specification and Description Language only an entry, which will be removed when this article is correctly deleted. Arguments for inclusion must be policy-based. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment An is not WP:BITEy. Sam Sailor Sing 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 I guess the underlying question here is about what notable means when it comes to very specialized technologies. There has been comments from experts in this specialized community to state the tool was actually notable in the domain. The reply from non specialized people is that it is not notable but I do not understand how they can tell. Manu31415 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the question here, that's a question for talk page at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Some of the papers listed above describe how they have been using Real Time Developer Studio in their work. It is not trivial or incidental. If that can help please have a look at this CS web page which is unfortunately only available in French. CS is listed on Euronext stock exchange. It basically says that RTDS has been used by CS since 2004 to design the Air Traffic Control for Airbus. That does not look trivial or incidental to me. Manu31415 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Walter when he above that none of the listed papers offer significant coverage. As for the link given to the CS web page it only mentions RTDS parenthetically, "(en l'occurrence Pragmadev pour son outil RTDS)", and I'd call that incidental and trivial. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with industrial tools is that companies rarely publicize their usage. It is the opposite with academic tools, there are a lot of publications but that does not mean there are a lot of active users. Most of our success stories are only available on paper format so when a company web site says "in that case PragmaDev for its tool RTDS" it is very meaningful. Anyway in that case the whole CS story has actually been presented at a conference and you can find the whole paper here. Manu31415 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Wikipedia WP:GNG concept, coverage is either trivial or significant. Trivial coverage is something like the entry in a phone book.  The parenthetical mention being discussed is giving direct attention to the topic, so it is not trivial, even if it is short.  In the real world, or en:notability, if I am reading this correctly, the mention is quite significant, because people's lives under air traffic control are being affected.  This parenthetical text goes directly to the fact that this company has WP:LASTING effects on the world-at-large.  Whether or not this topic meets WP:GNG is another question.  My experience has been that wp:notable companies are listed at Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment - It appears possible that several of the !votes earlier in the discussion may be from a sockpuppet, in which the same user may be using using different signatures. NorthAmerica1000 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but the product is certainly worth an article. Its probably 3-4th generation modelling tool from an established software company, creating and implementing a real-time modelling language with code generation. scope_creep talk  23:52  25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it is the same user with different signatures ? Who are you thinking of ? Manu31415 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect and Merge to Specification and Description Language I find the comments of the author of the three books on SDL to be helpful.  The current article lacks the needed inline citations required by WP:V, so redirect for now.  Merge using inline citation is left as an exercise for interested parties, which we have expertise on SDL here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the target article some more, I suggest the merge consider the creation of List of SDL tools. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Specification and Design Language redirects to Specification and Description Language. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Few remarks on the previous comment:
 * The current article has not gone further because the article was considered for deletion. It will be improved if it is not deleted.
 * I do not understand why merging a technology article and a tool article would help.
 * Creating a List of SDL tools requires each listed tools to have an entry in Wikipedia. This is why I created this article in the first place, to be listed in the List of UML tools. Because our tool supports both technologies as well as TTCN-3.
 * The motivation of Walter Görlitz to delete the article is that the tool is not notable enough to have its own entry. In that case it will be excluded of any 'List of XXX tools'. I consider the tool has significant coverage and deserves its own entry. Notability is the core of this discussion. The comments should help to reach a consensus on that point. Manu31415 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Do not Merge. What is the point of merging this article with the Specification and Description Language article. There is simply no benefit having them both together, and there is likely other tool chains which use this specification, in the future with attendant articles. Are they all going to be merged? It is simply a question of notability. These strange wee software product(s) which never existed except perhaps in paper form in as little as 10-20 years ago,  deserve an article. WP deserves it. If we are to simply rely on those software companies which have a big enough budget and nous to make their products popular and well known, then it's going to be a pretty barren landscape in WP. It is well worth an article. scope_creep talk  18:04  28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote from a notability guideline. WP:LISTN AKA WP:Notability states, Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote from a manual-of-style guideline.WP:CSC AKA WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists states, # Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.  For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses.  However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem at List of UML tools is not that the topic may or may not be non-notable.  The quotes above clarify that such is not an issue, or at least shouldn't be, at that list.
 * Comment The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is WP:V verifiability.  The problem at List of UML tools is that the RTDS entries have no inline citations with which readers can verify the material.  IMO, editors with a WP:COI need to hold themselves to a higher standard, and support the concern of the community that such editors may knowingly or unknowingly be promoting their products in lieu of building an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What? The threshold for inclusion of sources is WP:V. The threshold of inclusion of articles is WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is my experience that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against European software developers.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my experience that Wikipedia has a systematic bias in favour of notable subjects and nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:V has said since I think 2005, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability..."  This means inclusion of material/information.  Another important concept from WP:V is WP:BURDEN, "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability. You're just plain wrong. Verifiability does not have anything to do with whether an article should or should not be included on Wikipedia. What you're confusing is the following sentence: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (emphasis mine). So V refers to references only, not articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit comments are becoming increasingly agitated, moving from "wrong" to now "dead wrong". This concept has now come out in the prose, too.  Yet if I say "material/information", and you complain that I said "articles", this is your problem, not mine.  I agree that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, in fact, if you look at the essay WP:Inaccuracy, of which I am the main author, it says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2014 (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.