Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code Aster (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Code Aster

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD was closed as no consensus as it attracted only two responses (one each way) - I'm hoping this time we can attract enough comments for a consensus, especially as this article has been waiting with a notability tag on it for 9 years now. Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Opening new AfD just days after the first one was closed? As of sources, my preliminary search shows nothing substantial in usual tech media. What about sources posted by keep vote in the last AfD? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see if it wasn't tagged for technology, last time. Maybe we can some engineering folks chime in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first AFD was closed only two days ago. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion () is of the opinion that we generally do not renominate a page for at least two months after a "no consensus" close, and I tend to agree. Are none of the 1200+ GScholar hits useful? Are none of the 1800+ GBooks hits useful? — Sam Sailor 12:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The actual links on the article are mainly other wikis and promotional material. Academia's tendency to cite all software used in research would explain the GScholar results. Ziphit (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, what was the policy based argument for deletion? — Sam Sailor 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgot to include WP:DEL4 WP:SIGCOV, The GScholar references do not count as significant coverage, otherwise a slew of other software-related articles that were deemed non-notable would be notable Ziphit (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software tagged since August 2008, as I have said in the last AfD. Searching fails to find independent reliable sources. The source provided by Siuenti is not a reliable source, and I do not see coverage in the source provided by Gregory Holst. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN - an argument to be avoided. Repeating it doesn't make it any better. — Sam Sailor 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is niche open source Engineering software which isn't going to get a lot of media coverage. A quick search does find a couple of guide books written about using the software, and some technical papers discussing the results of using the software: [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] There are also numerous search results for classes for the software, suggesting a viable user base. Timtempleton (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the technical papers and guidebooks get it over GNG. I agree with Timtempleton:this is niche open source Engineering software which isn't going to get a lot of media coverage. In my mind, that means it isn't going to meet GNG. It has value for the community it serves, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2017 (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.