Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simprocess


 * 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. The article failed to provide sufficent sourcing to meet the notability guideline. If sources do exist to establish notability, then an editor is welcome to contact me with those sources to have this userfied (Although I just did a search myself and the results aren't exactly optimistic). Furthermore, as FreeRangeFrog pointed out, the article is highly promotional and largely reads like a manual or sales brochure. With only one person wishing to keep the article after two relistings, it seems that the consensus here is to delete. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Simprocess

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

Computer simulation package. Written up at great length by someone who is clearly closely involved with it. Is it notable? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable software. Spam at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Nomination utterly fails WP:BEFORE. Speculative questions should be asked on the article's talk page before being brought here.  And, yes, the topic is notable as a cursory search immediately shows. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no one is disputing whether the problems solved by this software are notable, what is being disputed is that this software package is the recipient of significant coverage by independent reliable 3rd party sources. This has been here for 2 weeks and no one has shown it meets WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The nominator asked whether it is notable - perhaps he was too busy to conduct a search himself.  FreeRange Frog asserted that it was non-notable but provided no evidence.  I conducted a search and found that there are hundreds of good sources.  Since you have not commented on these, then presumably you are too busy to investigate the topic too.  What we have here is a clear case of it being someone else's problem to do the work of adding more references.  It is a disgrace that a substantial article should be put at risk in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article does not cite substantial, reliable third party coverage of this software.  Sandstein   07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article and its talk page contain links and citations of numerous works which provide evidence of substantial, reliable third party coverage. This delete opinion is at variance with these facts.  It is a continuing disgrace that a good faith article should be put at risk by such shoddy process which is so clearly contrary to our policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE which emphatically state: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."


 * 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.