Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Software. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Software

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. kur ykh 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing

Software product by a redlinked company (deleted through PROD); article submitted by the marketing manager of the company. While the Milwaukee Business Journal reference is valid, I'm not finding other reliable, independent (ie not a press release) sources in gsearch or gnews. The MBJ article doesn't give me enough to rewrite without the advertising copy, previous prod has been contested, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement that fails notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ad--I hate ads on Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE (partially) IN CAPS. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANGEL Learning

Privately held company, fails WP:ORG--coverage that is documented appears to be non-independent and/or non-reliable, focusing on company products. Previously deleted as advertising in 2005, relisting for AfD on presumption that speedy may be declined due to the passage of time. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impressive amount of effort expended on spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another editor nom'd this as a G4 speedy, which I declined, as the current version is not substantially the same as this one. (It's close, but there's been an attempt to address the sourcing and notability issues.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, that was me, too) Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the "improved" article stills reads like a CV for investors. Remove all the self-prasing blurbs about their product line and the products-in-development and it would be more encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete as the company is a notable one in the educational e-learning space. The links provide evidence of this company's notability. 1) Major companies provide content or integrations to their main product: Houghton Millflin, Pearson Education, and Wiley. 2) The company has been named a company to watch by the state of Indiana. 3) Michael Feldstein (a noted e-learning expert) estimates their market share has gone from 5% to 9% in a single year and the Kelly School of Business has recognized their growth as well. 4) Their main product has recieved two CODiE Awards, signficant recognition in the technology space. 5) Their products have been covered in main educational publications: Campus Technology and T.H.E. Journal. I've done some editing to help this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFezOn (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) — TheFezOn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Awards are nice but don't represent significant coverage to me. Otherwise their products seem unremarkable for a keep. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Distance learning and virtual education is one of the fastest growing educational movements in the country. While Blackboard is the biggest, ANGEL, Desire2Learn, and eCollege are all important products in this category. If ANGEL is deleted, so should Desire2Learn and eCollege. They are all, however, notable products and recognized in the educational market as important products. The CODiE awards are the "academy awards" of the software market, important designations as the best of in a given category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcapitald (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is clearly too promotional, but I think there has been enough small coverage pieces to establish weak notability. Tan | 39 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet Resource Downloader

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. BJ^Talk 09:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Tedickey (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I cannot find any third-party sources supporting notability. Wikipedia is not sourceforge. VG ☎ 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin (programming language)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Programming language which lacks cites from independent reliable sources, and appears to fail the Google test for notability. The Anome (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not reliable third party sources are found. I used the keywords Spin and Chip Gracey (language's creator) and not found any notable sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I contest the methods used to conduct the "Google test". Using "Spin (programming language)" is an unrealistic construct. No one is going to write a book, for example, which says: "Spin (programming language) is used to program xyz". In five seconds, which includes typing and Internet latecy, I found one reliable source: David A. Scanlan, Martin A. Hebel. "Programming the eight-core propeller chip" Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Volume 23, Issue 1, October 2007. I think merge-able content in the article should be merged into Parallax Propeller and Spin be redirected, as the programming language is "coupled" to the Parallax Propeller and doesn't achieve enough notability for now. Being unfamiliar with the subject, I willing to change my recommendation if someone tells me otherwise. Rilak (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given that Rilak found some sources. i think its detailed enuf to warrant its own page too.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One academic citation is not sufficient to establish notability. Doubly so when it occurs in an obscure journal. VG ☎ 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article has as topic the language and processors produced by the same corporation, so it's not a third party source. Even worse, the journal article has zero citations. VG ☎ 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not sure if this helps, but theres an active online forum for propeller/spin at [1] with 20+ posts for just today and also a wiki [2] Mission Fleg (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable academic language. The only publications about it was written by people from the same research group, and appeared in an obscure journal. That journal article has yet to be cited by anyone else. Above !voters clearly did not know how to evaluate such a source. VG ☎ 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the articles on both the Parallax,_Inc._(company) and Parallax_Propeller have zero third-party references to establish notability. VG ☎ 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, I always though that the Parallax Propeller and Spin was created by Chip Gracey and his company, Parallax, a commercial company that markets a commercial product. I see no evidence that this is a academic language. The ACM claims that David A Scanlan and Martin A Hebel have only been affiliated with the Illinois State University and the Southern Illinois University respectively and not Parallax. It appears that either an assessment has been incorrectly made or there is a misunderstanding. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One acedemic paper does not make something notable, most PhDs produce many more, but don't get their own wiki articles. Redirect if an expert knows where toYobmod (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeOS

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is written like an advertisement. Sure it might have the references, this does not account on why the article is written like an advert, though. Weak references. Lacking any significance factor. Message from XENU^{u, t} 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is slightly NPOV, too. Message from XENU^{u, t} 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was G11 deleted before. Message from XENU^{u, t} 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It's notable, and style issues aren't grounds for deletion at AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. I agree with Eastmain; it meets the notability requirements. Note that Message from Xenu has also nominated the archived talk for this article for deletion. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under what criteria does it qualify as notable? It seems to have a complete lack of third party independent sourcing. --neon white talk 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't cited in the article, but it's gotten a mention in PC Mag and was briefly reviewed in Infoworld. No arguments that the citations are weak, but there are at least 3 external sources. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a very weak case. It's still lacking in the 'Significant coverage' part. --neon white talk 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's an article in linux.com (burried in the all the references in the article). [3]. Softpedia does not inspire me much confidence in their editorial policy — you can find a review for pretty much anything there. Quite often the Softpedia reviews also lack any critical thinking, and just regurgitate soundbites from the software authors. VG ☎ 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so one creditable reference? Great. Message from XENU^{u, t} 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reference you can see http://mags.acm.org/communications/200807/?pg=12 . -- 192.223.140.62 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why have a number of your edits been vandalism? See: [4]. The fact you're participating in this article without vandalizing it leads me to think your not NPOV. Message from XENU^{u, t} 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IP address, not an account. The person from ACM who originally signed his email address here isn't necessarily the same one whose edits have been reverted as vandalism. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable, its encyclopedic, & the citations are good. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Spellcast (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reportbug-ng

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non notable software. No reliable sources offered or available. The software it is a alternative for is not notable enough for its own page Nuttah (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 19:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough for its own. Alexius08 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. Bongomatic (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie (software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software; contested PROD. No substantial third party coverage on this subject is in evidence. Sandstein 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a view to recreate *if* something notable (software awards, remarkable milestones, mainstream popularity etc.) actually occurs. SMC (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. All I can find is software sites and blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google search on '+Sophie multimedia "future of the book"' gives 2700 results, including at least one scholarly paper ("Sophie and the Future of Reading and Writing", Forum Futures 2007, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Cambridge, Mass.) and one call for proposals by a major university. It is not clear how deletion of the article would improve the encyclopedia for our readers. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. This peer-reviewed paper was written by authors of the software, but it's too recent to have citations. Papers written by the authors of non-notable academic software are numerous (wrote some myself), and we cannot guess their future. The other "paper" linked above is not peer reviewed, and also written by authors of the software, so I consider it a manual or guide. VG ☎ 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the material that's usually discussed most and best in informal references, and only very slowly and incompletely ends up in peer reviewed articles. The originating organization is a major one, and worth an article -- it has done much else as well. Already notable. DGG (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of backup software

Hopeless. Ghost is imaging software, and none of the ex-Veritas or Legato products are mentioned. Virtually all commercial backup software has most of the arbitrarily chosen features listed (e.g. compression, automation), and the list of platforms is hopelessly incomplete and does not indicate the things which are actually important in selecting backup software, such as vss integration, host agent availablility for AIX, Solaris and the like, VMware support / integration (and I guess VCB), data deduplication, distributed operation, delegated user privileges and self-service restore, management of multiple recovery point and recovery time objectives, management reporting and analysis, media ageing and rotation - in fact it's close to impossible to come up with a table comparing backup products which is not classified by price band and market, or hopelessly sparse and unreadable. The list is also unsourced. I think this is more like a school project scratchpad than an article. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is practically no way to complete this list. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate selection with respect to both products and features. A comprehensive table could only be constructed by original research using primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Why was this nominated 15 minutes after initial creation? There are certainly other software comparison articles that have been accepted on WP & I don't see why we couldn't have on on backup software. I'm very surprised to see this WP:BITE by JzG! --Karnesky (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the problems raised by JzG and followers require the article to be deleted. The topic is not anymore WP:INDISCRIMINATE than any other software comparison table in Wikipedia. The fact that the table is incomplete is not a valid reason to delete it. You can easily verify most of the features from the software articles linked. Adding citations to a table like that is impractical. Listing self-evident features of software is not OR. VG ☎ 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason given is an improvement argument, not a deletion reason. These complaints, as well as sourcing issues, can be addressed - why not give the article a chance, or do it yourselves? SMC (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consumer guide material, not encyclopedia material. Drawing up these comparisons seems to be original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, this will be a magnet for original research and personal points of view. Impossible to properly source for "comparisons", only features. Regardless of how old the article is, the premise is fatally flawed and can never pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE - PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate how this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The features used in the table head are usually mentioned in the articles for each product. VG ☎ 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We literally have hundreds of such comparison on Wikipedia. Many software comparisons in Wikipedia have survived deletion. I think the only reason why this may not is because it is essentially a very new stub. There is no reason that these need to be based on original research--there are WP:RS that describe the features of products & even WP:RS comparisons that may be used as a basis for the article. Can those calling for deletion please say whether they would support recreation of this article, assuming that it was more comprehensive in the products and features that it included and assuming that it was properly sourced? --Karnesky (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In general, I am against "comparison" articles of current products. Comparing the tactics of two war generals, ok. Comparing historical events, ok. Comparing products is not the same, and leads to what I complained of. If you want to nominate other comparison type articles that use current products, I will be happy to vote delete on those as well. I don't have the time to dig them all up myself. But just because other stuff exists, that doesn't justify this article staying. There are many problems, such as "what features do you list as being compared", which is indescriminate or original research, before you even start writing. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here, I found for you, go ahead an nominate it: Comparison_of_handheld_game_consoles. VG ☎ 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article isn't the same (by ANY stretch of the imagination), and being a smart ass doesn't make you right, it just makes you a smart ass. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, what makes it different? This is a good faith question. Perhaps we can draft some guidelines for acceptable comparisons, like we have for lists. VG ☎ 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, i will bite. The console article covers existing AND historical hardware, which adds a great deal of context and information that can't be found in the individual articles. The console article compares things like RAM, media, screen size, etc. which are physical traits shared by all the items and not subject to personal opinion. The software article (like any software article) contains software features, which are not universal across all brands. (ie: if brand $x has a feature, do you list it and show that brand $x is the only one that has it? What about $y feature? WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT FEATURE $Z!!111 I can see it now, NPOV issues out the wazoo.). There are a lot more consoles to list and compare, further justifying the article. The software article ALSO will always be out of date as new versions come out or are discontinued, while the console article is simply added to, meaning once the hardware is obsolete, the information isn't. This isn't true with the software. In the backup software instance, the information has zero historical importance, even if it is WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL to some. In short, they are really really different because one is hardware, one is software, so you really can't compare the two article types. That doesn't take in the consideration WP:OTHERSTUFF. I would be against an article comparing Linux and Windows for the same reason. I haven't taken the time (and won't) to hunt them all down, but will !vote delete when I see them. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One last quick note: it is my opinion that existing policies already cover this, and no new policy or guideline is needed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V; possible spam magnet, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, update and expand. The difficulties raised above are only editing questions. We d include such comparisons for notable classes of software. What a consumer guide does in addition, and we do not, is make recommendations and include ephemeral matter such as prices and where to buy the products. . DGG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CA Plex

Non-notable software. VG ☎ 01:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much of this article is gibberish. From the article, I have no idea what this software does: all bluelinks from TLAs are actually links to dab pages with no indication of which entry is the relevant one. I'm actually tempted to tag this one as a no context speedy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the article obviously says this is an integrated development environment; no point in wiki-lawyering it away. VG ☎ 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's been fixed. Still, Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I do not find an obvious way to enter this conversation from the page so I am directly editing. But I found this page helpful in my research about the product and would prefer to just see it expanded instead of deleted. I have just found an expert on CA Plex over at ADCAustin.com and will attempt to get them to contribute. - Symbology101 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author, and very inexperienced at this. I am doing some research on what should be done to make this notable. Any advice is appreciated. I simply followed some examples of other articles that seemed equally brief (I would like to expand on this in the future certainly), but must be doing something wrong. Jdrhodes (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too much jargon. Alexius08 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language Computer Corporation

Non-notable startup. VG ☎ 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google News search brings up only 3 articles, none of which are directly about the the computer company. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would have speedied. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ok, clearly I have not done enough to prove this is a notable company. Also, I disagree with the term "startup", the company has been around long before Wikipedia and doesn't seek VC funding like a startup. I agree that 6-month old startups that are 90% likely to fail are not notable. Before deleting the page, please give me some pointers on what must be done to prove notability. Seeing as how there is a page for question answering, it is notable that LCC has won NIST's competition for question answering almost every year for 10 years. LCC was in the latest issue of Communications of the ACM as one of 6 companies to have a web-based question answering system (others include Ask.com and BrainBoost). If Google News is your criteria, then you're going to leave out a lot of R&D companies that quite frankly don't have marketing units to seek press. I've seen Wikipedia pages for companies with 2-3 people who basically market the heck out of themselves yet accomplish very little. I recommend that instead of a Google News search, try a Google Scholar search using some of the "key" individuals mentioned on their website: Example 1, Example 2. Captkrob (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's useful to suggest where to look for sources of information, the burden is on the person(s) who believe that there is enough independent coverage to show notability to find the sources and add them to the article. If you can produce third party sources that verify the claims then the article will have a better chance of surviving. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some direct links for those claims? I could not verify them myself (and I do have full access to ACM digital library). VG ☎ 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a few bits of information that convince me: (1) the academic sources, especially the ACM notice as noted above; (2) two US military contracts, one in 2006 for $8.04 million (US Fed News, 2006-10-02) and one in 2008 for $742,820 (US Fed News 2008-03-06); (3) some sources about the company's commercial spin-off, Lymba, like a review of Lymba's PowerAnswer product (Natural Language Engineering 14 (1): 141–144. doi:10.1017/S1351324907004639). From the looks of it, this is a largely low-profile operation, but it is working on a significant scale (just shy of $9 million in defense contracts!), and the sources are eminently verifiable. I will incorporate these sources and others within the next couple of days. Avram (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I still am planning on getting this up to par! One strong source I've just come upon is a summary of federal funds received, from www.usaspending.gov. This source gives a total of $8,353,476 from 2006 to 2008, with a breakdown by year and branch of the military (Army, Navy and Air Force). Avram (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Avram. rootology (C)(T) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 17 employees do not a notable computer corporation make. Themfromspace (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no evidence that any Wikipedia policy sets a minimum number of employees in order to meet notability standards. The sources Avram has identified all support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Captkrob and Avram. Sources exist and articles should not be punished because the company doesn't have a public relations wing. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Software Proposed deletion

for occasional archiving

Digital Media Framework (via WP:PROD on 4 January 2008) Deleted
Harmonia research project (via WP:PROD on 27 December 2007) Deleted
Deleaker (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

Software

TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing

ANGEL Learning

Usenet Resource Downloader

Spin (programming language)

EyeOS

Reportbug-ng

Sophie (software)

Comparison of backup software

CA Plex

Language Computer Corporation

Software Proposed deletion

Developers

Categories