Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bios Data Analyzer

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bios Data Analyzer

Article appears to be the computer software equivalent of band vanity, i.e. its not notable. The only google hits point back to WP. Furthermore, the software seems to implement Bios theory, a topic itself that is itself possibly pseudoscience or original research or something irrational: this accusation is right now being hotly debated at Talk:Bios theory and Talk:Chaos theory. WP is not the place for advertizing software, and even less for advertising pseudoscience software. linas 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Academia's version of advertising. I don't know how notable the journal in which this was published is, but it doesn't seem to pass WP:SOFTWARE anyway. --Kinu 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable software for pseudoscientific stuff. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:31Z
• Delete advert Avi 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: whatever it is, its title is very misleading (for the computer's BIOS). Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it is not notable and propagates erroneous notions. XaosBits 03:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very interesting how none of you marked Chaos Data Analyzer for deletion. Lakinekaki
• Delete, I just read WP:SOFTWARE (which is a proposal only, but a good one in my oppinion) provided by Kinu and agree that it is not notable. Lakinekaki
• P.S.: linas, your categorization of Bios theory as protoscience is good, your categorization of Bios theory as pseudoscience or original research or something irrational is nothing more than your personal oppinion that by the way happens to be incorrect.Lakinekaki
• delete (since Bios theory itself should die) William M. Connolley 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• William M. Connolley, no need for emotinal outbursts here! :o) Noone or nothing should die. That's such a strong, emotionally charged word. And you reasoning is false. Even if Bios theory turns out to be false, but there are million of users of Bios Data Analyzer, then the article should stay! One does not imply the existence or nonexistence of the other! Lakinekaki
• Delete not notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:33, 10 February 2006 (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.