Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Simulation Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RJHall (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 19 April 2011 (Computer Simulation Technology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Computer Simulation Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article on non-notable company. —Joseph RoeTkCb, 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable spam ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 12:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This business develops and markets software tools for the numerical simulation of electromagnetic fields, which at least sounds more interesting and important than "project management", and even more of a niche field. Article currently reads like spam: the leading edge tool for the fast and accurate simulation of high frequency devices... a highly specialized product for the fully consistent simulation of free moving charged particles... a versatile tool... a powerful 3D electromagnetic simulation tool... Was hoping that at least some of the Scholar hits would actually be about this business, but almost all of them seem to be occurrences of the phrase "computer simulation technology", and the couple relevant ones seem to be self-generated "about us" sheets prepared for conferences they attended. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—As the first company to publically market an FDTD software package, I think they are notable.[1] There appear to be enough independent secondary sources available to satisfy the GNG.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]