Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WIRIS

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIRIS

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

Content-free recreation of previously deleted and userfied article; prodded but prod removed, by SPA without valid rationale but now AfD is the only option.JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Software product without the slightest indication of notability. If this was a company page, it would be A7 CSD worthy. But it's a product, not a company, so here we are. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my Delete. Most of the sources given below are offline, making it hard to give them a proper evaluation, but I'll consider them to be enough to make me no longer certain enough of my "delete" to let it stand. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ per above. It appears to be supported by Tiigrihüpe but that's hardly enough to show notability. A previous discussion mentioned results on Google Scholar, I'm not sure what to think of that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep There appears to be significant coverage of this product in

Angel A. Juan, ed. (2012). Teaching Mathematics Online: Emergent Technologies and Methodologies. IGI Global Snippet. pp. 335–338. ISBN 1609608763.
Fatos Xhafa; et al., eds. (2010). Computational Intelligence for Technology Enhanced Learning. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Vol. 273. Springer-Verlag. pp. 232–233. ISBN 3642112234.
Sebastián Xambó Descamps (2003). Block Error-Correcting Codes: A Computational Primer. Universitext. Springer-Verlag. pp. 221–235. ISBN 3540003959.
Contributions to Science. Vol. 2. Institut d'Estudis Catalans. 2001. pp. 269–275.

Why would these not establish notability? Deltahedron (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional, from the 744 hits on Google Scholar

Marquès, D., Eixarch, R., Casanellas, G., Martínez, B. and Smith, T.J. (2006) WIRIS OM Tools: a Semantic Formula Editor. Mathematical User Interfaces workshop, Oxford, UK, August 10th, 2006.
Estela, M.R. Teaching and Learning Calculus using WIRIS Technology in Moodle environment. International Congress of Mathematicians, Madrid, 2006
Camarero, B. Review of the teaching of geometry, EDULEARN06

Need I go on? Deltahedron (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any reasons not to take the above as evidence of notability, I'm !voting Keep. Deltahedron (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Deltahedron, I was about to quote a similar set of references. While the article itself is the barest stub, the WIRIS topic is notable in terms of peer-reviewed publications and secondary references, and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2012 (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.