Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emigma (software)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emigma (software)

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

Lots of references but which of them demonstrate the subject's notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The bulk of the references appear to be WP:PRIMARY, and none establishes the subject's notability. Layzner (Talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the references by Cheng, Duckworth and Heck demonstrate notability since the entire article deals with analysis of the topic's capabilities in each case. The first two reference I mentioned may appear to be WP:PRIMARY because they link to the software's website but they are not. The link for the third reference is to an excerpt. Payment is required to read the full article. CagedEye (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apologies; I didn't examine all the sources from the seemingly-primary website in detail. Layzner (Talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Cheng reference looks to be independent and has substantial content. It shows notability. The page does look a bit like a software release page rather than an encyclopedia entry though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to what's been mentioned above for sources citing the software, I see other such mentions when I do a quick literature search for the software. That's all I can find though, just sources saying some iteration of, "We used EMIGMA for our analysis." with sometimes a very brief synopsis of why. If there were fewer articles saying that, I would be in the delete camp, but there's just enough to warrant a stub in terms of notability echoing Graeme Bartlett's comment on software page vs encyclopedia page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2017 (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.