Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poweresim

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. Not a "keep" because the opinions by Panthera germanicus and Ret.Prof are unpersuasive for the reasons given by Haakon. Sandstein 07:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poweresim[edit]

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

Highly specialised piece of software with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and from SPA with possible COI. Haakon (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Chinese language source is independent, detailed at length, and about the subject software (but it is only one source, it is linked twice). From what I can tell, the source magazine is written for hobbyists, it is not an industry trade rag. The other sources show it being used, multiple times, in industry demonstrations and papers. English speaking sources also show it being used academically at Chinese universities. I don't think the industry conferences and academic use show notability - however, based on them I think their are Chinese language sources we are missing. The user spent quite some time with the article in userspace before submitting it and attempted to address concerns over a month long period. I think they've done their duty even if they are an SPA. Miami33139 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is serious and the software certainly exists and fulfils a useful purpose. I find an increasingly strong tendency on the part of many editors here to define notability more as whether an article is of personal interest than whether it fulfils the wikipedia definition. I, at least, found the article of sufficient value as to discuss it with my mechatronics students this coming week.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But notability is not about whether the subject exists, or the article is written in a serious tone, or the subject having a purpose, or someone finding the article useful. Wikipedia is not simply a repository of information; it tries to be an encyclopedia which covers stuff of notability. Haakon (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- From the references listed in the article: Leakage Inductance Calculation... establishes some notability: not enough to carry the article on its own, but I can't evaluate the Chinese-language cites. Ergo I AGF, and assume that there is sufficient coverage in academic literature. I also don't find flamboyant peacockage or other indicators of COI in the article. Certainly the article could use a clean-up, but it is by no means worthy of deletion. — æk ^Talk 06:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 潘毅傑 is the founder of the company making PowerEsim. The other source cited has two pages in total, and I can't find any mentions of the software on the first page, other than the title and the abstract. (Don't have access to the second.) Tim Song (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A useful article and the software certainly exists. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is invalid; you may find the article useful and the software does of course exist, but what we're discussing is whether the subject fulfuls the general notability guideline, which is required for it to be covered by an encylcopedia. Haakon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (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.