Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modelio (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. I'll userfy it for the author and coach a bit, since it looks like nobody answered his question. Shimeru (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modelio

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

Absolutely no indication of the topic's importance. Possibly some google hits but hard to find third-party, non-trivial coverage; also, no third-party non-trivial coverage included in the article. This article, based on its stable release from last week and the three links (support, official website twice) smells an awful lot like WP:ADVERT. It may be notable, but there are no links here to prove it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that this could be {{db-g4}}, however it's not clear to me what the previous content was. Was it significantly rewritten? I did add the g4 tag so someone else can make the g4 determination or not. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last stable release dates from last week but this tool exists since last year. A list of releases has been added. A Modelio article has been deleted last year because it was a new tool. Now it is more and more used. If I understand, references to sites talking about this tool must be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.85.10 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you indicate me how to improve this article? I don't know content what the previous version was. Should I remove features list? Should I keep introduction text only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titchagui (talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reliable third-party sources are not provided and cannot be found. Article is promotional in tone and intent. Abductive (reasoning) 04:01, 4 June 2010 (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.