Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALGOR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (after all, it invented the Internet ;) ). NawlinWiki 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALGOR

ALGOR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tagged for CSD:G11 (Spam) speedy but not a candidate. Article is referenced and the article's subject is the focus of articles in said references. Whether or not those articles appear in non-trivial publications is up for debate. I have no solid opinion about ALGOR, but I would be delighted if it ran for president in '08. Submitted. A Traintalk 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. There may be some other sources to add although Google News Archive mainly turns up press releases. ALGOR has been around in some form since the DOS days and is pretty much a standard piece of software for various kinds of engineering. This might work better if it were transformed into an article on the company instead of the product. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - per does not assert notability. The only RS that may exist are the 2 that I cannot verify. Article reads like a an advert. Nice touch with the 9-digit zip though ;) the_undertow talk 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I don't know enough about the subject to really determine whether this is notable or not. Are the sources at the bottom valid? Needs cleanup at the very least.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three reliable sources in the article, all of which appear non-trivial, mean that this article meets the requirements at WP:N. The ability of any individual user to easily access them in order to verify their content is irrelevant, as long as they do exist and it is possible for them to be verified, policy is satisfied. JulesH 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have added links to an online copy of one of the reliable sources, and to an abstract of another. JulesH 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response As long as it is possible to be verified...I agree, however you seem as if you would take any printed sources as truth. Also, can you please provide the 3 sources, which you find to be reliable? If the reference section were properly formatted, I would think this would be a keeper. I see #1 is a link to the subject's homepage. That won't work. #3 and #5 are hyperlinks to a main page? I still don't see what makes this software notable. the_undertow talk 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reference #3 can be found by searching for its title on the main page that's linked to. I couldn't, however, find reference #5. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 are to relevant trade journals, and as such are, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable reliable sources. JulesH 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - After looking at the sources your provided, I agree that the trade journals are good resources. The article just needs an overhaul. Changing my stance. the_undertow talk 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No opinion on keep vs. delete, but if kept the article needs some major de-spamming. I get queasy when I read sentences like "A notable aspect of ALGOR is its extensive support; offered through free online step-by-step videos" in Wikipedia. I'm gonna try and chop some of that right now, if nobody minds... --Jaysweet 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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.