Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenAccess

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAccess

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

Blatant unsourced advert. Includes zero sources and a lot of promotional language and content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Blatantly false nomination: plenty of sources both in the article now and zero due diligence from the nominator. The language is factual description of the EDA community effort for design tool interoperability. -M.Altenmann >t 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to nominator's claim, article is reliably sourced and passes WP:ORG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - books and industry standards are acceptable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll be in the minority here, but I don't see anything that makes this software or its 'coalition' notable. The few references are reliable, but not strong. The list of links at the bottom looks promotional. Most of the wiki pages listed there have not been updated since 2011, so it isn't clear if this is still a live project. In addition, the text of the article seems to have been taken directly from [1] which has a copyright notice on it. WP:COPYVIO LaMona (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- if it were a dead project, it is still of historical interest, since it made a major noise within EDA industry and attempted to address a real problem. and once again, independent references are abound, but ~~nobody gives a fuck~~ the apathy in wikipedia is on the rise. However a quick ~~google check easily shows there are contributions to the project~~ check shows that the statement "Most of the wiki pages listed there have not been updated" is both an exaggerrating and false: there are only two wikies, and one of them has "recent changes" dated 2014. All other listed webpages also have many updates dated by 2014.
- I appreciate efforts to clean wikipedia from unreliable texts created in early days, but guys, if you are not an expert in the particular industry, then please exercise due diligence befor jumping to conclusions. We are not discussing minor pokemon of aspiring pornstarlets; this is an effort of major players in EDA industry. It is sad public don't recognize these names. Here is a quiz: (1) Who manufactures chips for iphones? (11 points) (2) Will such company take part in a bullshit project? (2 points)
- Also, copyvio is ~~easily fixable~~ fixed; thanks for checking. this is not some scientific discovery or philosophical visions. -M.Altenmann >t 16:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing copyvio. If this is a "well-known" project, then it would be a good idea to support that with better sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, and one is not required to be an "expert in a particular industry" to know if an article is well-supported. The sources really do not support the above claims, and, to be honest, the article needs some TLC in terms of style and simple clarity. Perhaps one of the enthusiasts here could take that on? LaMona (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which claims and which sources? One is required to be an expert to make a judgement on whether some subject is worth researching for wikipedia. I used to be an enthusiast, but it was 10 years ago. I agree the article is not well supported. But your requirement of "better sources" is kinda strange. A book and a major conference not good enough? I threw in a couple of wrenches merely to halt this afd; I no longer care much to develop the subject. If more deletionists peep in, I will throw in more refs; two per voter-deleter. Otherwise the page is good enough for me: IMO the major asset of wikipedia is cross-linking of information, including interlanguage. The texts themselves 80% suck. -M.Altenmann >t 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs work, for sure, but a quick book search reveals the topic has the appropriate coverage to deserve an article. I've added a book source for the basic definition to help it on its way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 25 November 2014 (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.