Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OVPsim

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.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OVPsim[edit]

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

no assertion of notability - no indi 2ndary source fails WP:GNG and quick check didn't find any. SPAM / COI / SPA editor(s) Widefox; talk 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some further references and external links to illustrate the use of OVPsim away from OVP/Imperas contributors. Please provide feedback on further changes that should be made to allow this contribution to remain. Thanks Duncgrah (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's 3 non-independent external links (the ARM link by partners i.e. OVP/Imperas), and a wiki. None of those count as WP:RS for notability. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In an effort to prevent this from being open for all eternity. - I fail to see how this meets WP:GNG, I have looked around a search engine and sources certainly are not substantial and it's debatable whether any thing that could meet WP:RS has been provided, I certainly couldn't find anything obviously so via an internet search. However there is some usage of the term in the Google Scholar results, but this seems to be more about inclusion of the concept in the work rather than the work being about the concept which in it's seemingly early stage in life has yet to progress beyond an acronym of convenience to a term in common usage in it's own right much as those such as LAMP or PHP have done. --wintonian ^talk 02:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator suggest userify to aid closing this: as compromise so that 2ndary sources can be added satisfying WP:GNG (and submitted to new article creation). Duncgrah - would you want this moved to your page, and Wintonian does that sounds good with you? If so we can close. Widefox; talk 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea should have thought of that myself. The other option of course is to merge into and create a section in an appropriate article but I would like some issues like the seas-of-blue worked out before or during the process.The 3rd default option seem to be to keep in article space as no consensus, which in my opinion is a very poor 'we don't know what to do' one. It's not really my subject area so unfortunately there is no hope of me tidying it up. Even if we stretch things to their limits 1 weak delete is hardly consensus. --wintonian ^talk 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 1 weak delete + Duncgrah hasn't !voted or commented against GNG criteria of several substantial secondary independent sources. A third relisting may bring another opinion in, especially with the less drastic userify option. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (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.