Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnyLogic

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. Withdrawn by nominator DGG (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnyLogic

Possible non-notable software package; the article is largely an advertisement and makes no assertion of notability, and outside of blog-type posts and reseller puff-pieces I can't find any indication of notability in the Wikipedia sense (ie "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Prodded in November; prod removed followed by a talk-page claim that "this tool is used in thousands of universities world wide", but no sources. Notability tag removed in January by an SPA with two edits, one of which provided some sources on the talk-page that don't seem hugely convincing to me. I came across the article via a series of spam reverts promoting the software ([1]), so I'm more than suspicious that there are motives for this article's existence that are... non encyclopedic, shall we say. I'm not 100% convinced though, hence the AfD rather than speedy G11. EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn following improvements to the article and the addition of some credible references. Further third-party sources should be sought, but I believe there is now enough to establish notability. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am an author of this article, I will modify the article to make it more encyclopedic and will try to maintain it in future.

Regarding the notability of AnyLogic, there are several facts that from my point of view address the notability issue:

Type AnyLogic in Google - it gives 252,000 pages about for AnyLogic written in different languages
There are a lot of papers about AnyLogic on its vendor site. Look at the authors they are from different countries, it proves the notability from my point of view
Look at the list of AnyLogic users, there are hundreds of universities worldwide.
AnyLogic is the basic tool for simulation in IST European MODELPLEX project organized by Euporean Comission. :Please find the article about it, this article prove that in MODELPLEX, people working on the transformation from UML/SPT to AnyLogic, because AnyLogic is offered as a standard tool.
Please find the review of ORMS today, where AnyLogic is mentioned. There are a lot of other papers, just search for PDFs in google and get 19 000 results.

I will be happy to provide any other references, just tell me what I am supposed to publish to prove the notability. And again I also find current version of article marketing and will rewrite it in a timely manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Suslov (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the article doesn't establish the software's notability. If you look at a good software article (such as Norton Internet Security), you'll see that the article is about not only the software itself but also it's development history, reception, performance, impact etc (positive and negative), and the content is cited to reliable secondary sources. The History section you've added is a good start, but what we ideally need are something like substantial independent software reviews in reputable publications - has AnyLogic been reviewed in depth (ie not just a passing mention) by any technical journals or magazines? EyeSerene^talk 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to find and add the reliable information sources to this article as well as to extend its content to make it more useful for people working in operational reseach / simulation area. Sergey Suslov (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article thoroughly explains what AnyLogic is, but doesn't explain at all how it's notable, and rationales like how many Google hits turn up online are utterly invalid in discussions like these. The lack of third-party sources is another big issue here. W/o those, there is no notability to assert. All the content is probably original research and the notability assertions on the talk page are the unmistakable variety you get from single-(and-suspect)-purpose COI editors. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a book "Karpov, Yu (2006) Simulation of systems. Introduction in modeling with AnyLogic 5 – SPb.: BHV Petersburg ISBN 5-94157-148-8. The book is in Russian language and it is used in studying AnyLogic. Does it help to prove the notability? Can it be used as a reference? Sergey Suslov (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References: I have added some references on the scientific papers which proves most of the things written in the text. I hope they made the AnyLogic wiki-page more encyclopedic, prove that text is not just my personal research/opinion and the notability of the tool. I have got a lot of the information from the book I've mentioned above, but I am not sure whether I should refer on it since it is in Russian... Sergey Suslov (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:NONENG. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grandmartin11; I've left Sergey Suslov a note re this on his talk-page too. Non-English sources are OK where there are no English ones of a comparable quality, but a translation of the relevant portion should also be provided for verifiability (perhaps in a footnote). EyeSerene^talk 16:48, 10 April 2009 (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.