Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What'sBest! Excel Spreadsheet Solver
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mailer diablo (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 19 February 2007 (Closing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 03:48, 19 February 2007 by Mailer diablo (talk | contribs) (Closing debate; result was delete)
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable products and free advertisement for the software, as far as I can tell. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant advertising. The only reason the tag is off is because the author has repeatedly removed it. The author was warned once, but that was it. Leebo86 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the speedy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete barring rewrite and verifiable sources don't bite the newbies by speedy deleting instead of stating how article could be improved. i kan reed 05:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G11. Leebo nailed it on the pin - it's a blatant ad in both cases. YechielMan 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's too bad young people who develop software so often run into a brick wall when they want to advertise their accomplishments to the world. Can we develop a procedure for redirecting them to an online shareware forum, or something like that? DavidCBryant 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. i kan reed is wrong to say that we shouldn't bite the newbies: we shouldn't bite "honest" newbies. People who are simply posting adverts should fall between our jaws immediately. By the way, note that the LINGO Modeling Language is nothing to do with the more well-known LINGO, or the one invented in the 1970s. WMMartin 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have shortened the entry to more closely follow the style for other mathematical modeling system wikipedia entries, namely those for: AIMMS, AMPL, CPLEX, GAUSS (software), General Algebraic Modeling System(GAMS), IPOPT, KNITRO, Mathematica, Matlab, and SNOPT. Any suggestions on how to make this entry more comparable to these other entries would be appreciated.--Srinnath 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "notability", or "popularity" LINGO and What'sBest! are well known in Operations Research departments, e.g., the classic text, "Introduction to Operations Research", 8th edition, by Hillier and Lieberman, McGraw-Hill, makes numerous references to LINGO and What'sBest! and devotes Appendix 3.1 (10 pages) entirely to LINGO Modeling Language.--Srinnath 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the Hillier & Lieberman text is the first book of two textbooks listed as a reference in the Operations research Wikipedia entry. The Table of Contents of Hillier & Lieberman can be viewed at: Amazon --Srinnath 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. WP:NOT an instruction manual. The articles are too spammy, and the What'sBest article is a how-to guide, not a description. If someone, even Srinnath, is willing to start from the groud up and create articles which are not press releases or instruction books, with proper references, they should be able to. Αργυριου (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that WP is not an Instruction manual. I've just added an example to the description which is just to show the working of What'sBest! and defintely not as a How to guide. There was a similar example on one of the Wikipedia entries at : General Algebraic Modeling SystemHowever, since you consider my example as a how to guide, i've deleted that part. I don't think there's any part in the articles that's spammy. If you believe there's any part that's spammy, could you please let me know, so that I can alter it? --Srinnath 20:12, 15 February 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.