Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simio (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Simio
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/SimioArticles for deletion/Simio (2nd nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed by a drive-by user even after it was endorsed and I still confirm everything I said here but, fortunately, with this 2nd AfD (the first one was closed as Speedied), we can at least have G4. Although this is tagged as "new user and assume good faith", there's simply no chances of this actually being notable as I note several things: nothing satisfying the applicable notability, the sources are simply not convincing and searches, again, simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister  talk  21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete with the same reasoning as what the two PROD's said.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and, again, delete. I just tagged it for speedy, then realized it's been around for a while, so, in case it gets untagged, I'm contributing here. I looked for an earlier, non-spammy version—and couldn't find one. The version when deprodded was terribly promotional: "so even novice at programming languages can also use it easily", " which gives better risk measurement", "helps making real time decisions", "users can intuitively and graphically build a model", "users easily switch the display", "Simio enable [sic]", "Simio can provide", and the entire litany of things that Simio is said to be good for. And that "Further Reading" section. I can't believe it's avoided deletion before now. Largoplazo (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed the tag. If the language were changed, would the underlying content be satisfactory?  DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I must not be understanding your question. Your proposition, "If the language were changed, would the underlying content be satisfactory" says to me that G11 doesn't apply if someone could have written a completely different, neutral article about the subject, and I'm pretty sure that that isn't true. The language is what G11 is about. This article, as written, is promotional through and through. Largoplazo (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * G11 is for articles that  "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If...the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion" I removed G11 from this article because I think I could   fairly easily   rewrite it, as I have rewritten many hundreds of articles over the years.  (Sometimes I am even prepared to do the fundamental rewriting that can make a valid G11 non-promotional--I've done that many dozen times by now.)  I do this selectively,  , when I think there is sufficient notability  to be worth the troubleI therefore ask those who wish to delete the article,  Is there sufficient basis of notability here to make it practical?  (Yes, I normally formi  my own judgment on  this, but I sometimes want other opinions,--in this case, because I think it's borderline in both respects. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- promo content on a non-notable product. Sourcing does not suggest encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2016 (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.