Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAFA Calculator v1.1


 * 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. BJ Talk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

SAFA Calculator v1.1

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

A piece of software to evaluate academic papers. Written by new user Dearsafa and rather short on independent references. I am rather dubious about its notability. (It is not for this AfD to comment on the usefulnes of the tool but I must say in passing that the idea seems as useful as Wikipedia new page patrollers judging articles on layout, wikification and other superficial matters - which of course they never do!) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 09:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually when a new method is postulated, it is not that easy to realize its notability immediately. I think it needs time and user's response as well. At the beginning I was thinking to talk about the mathematical model as if the question of notability did not arise this way. But I realize that it would be difficult for readers to understand the mathematical procedure. I have added a few new sections which will be helpful for readers to understand the approach along with the background of the SAFA. I have been adding new references slowly because I am also learning working with wiki. (Dearsafa 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete. I cannot find any third party references to support notability of this software. All the third-party references in article are for tangential topics. VG &#x260E; 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, I need to change the page title to SAFA (Standardized Acceptance Factor Average)instead of SAFA Calculator v1.1. It seems to me that you are trying to say that the references are not relevant to the software. I feel I need to rewrite it with the different title. Then the references would be valid. A new method may not be necessarily very closed to the existing literatures that is what I am experiencing right now. Dearsafa 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearsafa (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - no reliable sources abotu the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2008 (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.