Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Simulation Technology

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Simulation Technology

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

Unsourced article on non-notable company. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable spam ╟─Treasury Tag►co-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]
Question So many results to sort through, I added (CST) and narrowed it down to 15 results about this company. [2] Are any of those results reliable sources? Or just regurgitated press releases? Dream Focus 17:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of those hits, none really look like independent sources or non-routine announcements of product lines and deals to me. All look like press release material: Computer Simulation Technology (CST) has announced the winners of the CST University Publication Award... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST and APLAC Solutions Corp have signed an agreement enabling the further expansion and interoperability of links... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST has announced the continued success of its software products... Agilent Technologies Inc and Computer Simulation TechnologyCST announced two major advances... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST and Acceleware CorpTSX VENTURE AXE are pleased to announce the latest generation of... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST a world leader in the computer simulation of radiated emissions and susceptibility announces major workflow improvements ... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST was showcasing its CST Microwave StudioR service release 4.3 which includes a number of improvements... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST Darmstadt announces a series of customer centric workshops... The only one that looked like it had anh promise is this one, and I'm not sure that one is enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:SPAM. Even if this outfit was notable, and it seems there is a large doubt, the article is hopeless, and better off starting from scratch Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPAM is a cleanup criteria; not a deletion criteria. There are a considerable number of independent references available, if you know where to look. As an example, a search in Google scholar for their "CST EM STUDIO" package returns 100 results.—RJH (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of substantive coverage of this company (as distinguished from general use of the phrase "computer simulation technology"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's unfortunate that the 216,000 ghits (6,490 scholar ghits) for the market leading "CST Microwave Studio" product doesn't include some coverage of the company. Ah well.—RJH (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (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.