Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcosimPro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Jorvik 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a brochure for this arcane piece of software. May not satisfy notability guidelines. Douglasmtaylor 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDumb it down, or delete -if it's worthwhile or highly notable, it will be rewritten.It needs fixing and dumbing down. Guroadrunner 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. I really appreciate your idea. I see your point and I'll try to rewrite the article in an easier way in the following days. Anyway, EcosimPro is a mathematical program and some concepts involves complex explanations. ;) Berkut wiki 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment - As you can see in the article history, the administrator Evilclown93 let it keep. Berkut wiki 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just a note that Evilclown93's removal of the prod template does not necessarily mean the user supports the article, just that the dispute over deletion was noted and so should be moved here with an afd tag. Douglasmtaylor 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia is a cooperation, I thing EcosimPro is a great software which is worth to have an article and I ask you for using your contributions to make its article a good one. I have read a lot of articles similars than the mine: CATIA, Modelica, PSPICE and so on (I think these programs are great too). I know my article can be improved and I want to make it 'live', e.i., I'll add information as soon as I'll have preparated it. Berkut wiki 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — Berkut wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. I changed your first keep to a comment since you are only allowed to include one keep-or-delete opinion in these discussions. —David Eppstein 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Ecosim and simplify. A Google scholar search finds almost 1500 scientific references to Ecosim, indicating to me that it's notable. EcosimPro, only around 100. So if EcosimPro is a commercialized and expanded version of Ecosim, it deserves at most a brief mention in a longer Ecosim article, I think. And there's a lot of cruft in the article that should just be removed — this is not the place for a detailed tutorial on examples of using ecosim, nor for long lists of vaguely-related links. —David Eppstein 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. EcosimPro is a program totally different than Ecosim but people usually think like you: EcosimPro is an extension of EcosimPro, but it is not. I have read a lot of references of Ecosim which are wrong (they have to be EcosimPro). The name is a little confuse but EcosimPro and Ecosim can be merge. Berkut wiki 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Desperately needs cleaning up, but it doesn't appear to be particularly less notable than any other software items on Wikipedia. Not having heard of something is not a valid reason for deletion.-- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all above. Giggy UCP 00:10, 23 July 2007 (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.