Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plaxis

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plaxis

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

Not a slightest indication of notability Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is parhaps the most used piece of geotechnical software in the world. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so far, this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched for the company name on the websites of Trouw, de Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad and Algemeen Dagblad and I got absolutely nothing. A GScholar search does turn up a few hundred citations to the software, but the ones I've checked contain acknowledgments of use, not in-depth coverage. I'm tending toward a delete !vote. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "acknowledgments of use, not in-depth coverage"? To some degree, scientific and encyclopedic relevance depends on the amount of usage. As written in the article, Plaxis is important software for many branches of civil engineering, and is developed internationally. Magazine and newspaper coverage, or whether or not scientific articles write about the software rather than simply mentioning that it's used, doesn't necessarily reflect encyclopedic relevance and scientific importance (in academia and for civil engineers). The latter are significant in this case. Note there are almost half a million Google hits. To delete this article would IMO virtually be equal to disregarding the field of geotechnical engineering. Why not delete all articles in Category:Computer-aided engineering software. Certain things don't get much media coverage, but are nonetheless noteworthy in Wikipedia. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssolbergj: Perhaps you're right, but then I think we should refocus more on the software rather than the company, avoiding vague/unsourced claims such as "Plaxis has fostered its ties with the academic world and increased its network". I was comparing it to Exact (software company), which (as a former public company) has had a lot of coverage in the general and trade press. For Plaxis, I don't even find a mention on computable.nl. Can you point to peer-reviewed papers that specifically assess the software, or discuss its workings in-depth? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plaxis is ranked amongthe most innovative software companies. Factors in this list include revenue size, sales growth, level of recurring revenues, sales through partners, degree of internationalization and profitability.- Ssolbergj (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH, in a footnote, states that "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject." I can't quickly find evidence that anyone has picked up on that list, except the companies that are on it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I'm sure it's a notable company within its small niche, I don't think it is notable per se. I can find only a few sources mentioning it. Furthermore, a large part of the article appears to be closely paraphrasing the company's "History" page. I tagged the article about that. Shritwod (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "within its small niche"? That's a rather ignorant description of the scientific branch that is soil mechanics. IMO Wikipedia should treat it like the significant and important discipline that it actually is, and Plaxis is a very popular and important piece of software for numeric calculations, having been developed sinche the 1980s. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you might call it ignorance, I would regard it as a sense of perspective about the level of information that should be regarded as encyclopaedic. Shritwod (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO significant geotechnical calculation tools are encyclopedic. The tthousands of video games with an article in Wikipedia are for instance no more important, to say the least, even though video games generally get more media publicity. -Ssolbergj (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is true to say that there are inconsistencies in what is regarded as encyclopaedic. Some categories have an enormous amount of cruft which I personally think should be excised. In this case, I tried to base my judgement on what would be notable for technology companies in general. I understand that in its specialist field (which is notable) that the company is potentially notable in itself, but I don't think it infers general notability. I understand your point though. Shritwod (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least as an article about the company. I would not mind a re-creation of an article about the software itself, for which there is this seemingly reliable review. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I agree that the focus of the article should be the software, instead of the corporation. I made this change in the article. - Ssolbergj (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some 3rd party sources now. More may be added. - Ssolbergj (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To me, this has all the earmarks of a promotional piece. Of the three references, the first is an endorsement about how much better Plaxis is than its competitors, the second doesn't mention Plaxis, and the third is their home page. Lots of information that they might want their customers to know, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article --they have a marketing department! they have a human resources department! they have an office in Singapore! But it's just a product like hundreds of thousands of others. If this is the most used piece of geotechnical software in the world, why have no independent reputable sources taken notice? Wikipedia is not a directory of software products. If notability cannot be demonstrated through depth of coverage, the article does not belong here. ubiquity (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as the article simply still has no solid enough signs of a better acceptable article. Delete at best and draft & userfy before moving to main articlespace again. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as laudable as the field is, unfortunately the dearth of in-depth coverage of this company makes it fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 18 February 2016 (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.