Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeus Numerix
Source: 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zeus Numerix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable: hardly any press coverage since 2004 (less than 5 articles in Google News), hardly any scientific peer-reviewed output (8 hits in Google Scholar, of which one in an international journal and one for a conference). The article itself has no references to reliable secondary sources. Crowsnest (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources exist, though not very many. I'm adding a few now. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is likely a copyvio. I am attempting a rewrite. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Never mind. The "copyvio" site was a Wikipedia copy. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP requires: "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a quick Google search gave me these three hits: [1], [2], and [3]. Seems notable, but somebody should do a serious rewrite of the article to make it more neutral and adding sources. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
- the 1st and 3rd articles mentioned by you are the same text, the 1st says to be a copy of the 3rd,
- the 2nd one is a press release by Zeus Numerix
- the 3rd appears to be a blog site, not a reliable source in the WP sense.
- Delete - with respect to the offered sources above, I concur with Crows Nest. (1) and (3) are the same and are not from a reliable source. (2) is a directory entry probably made from material supplied by Zeus Numerix. In looking for sources, I've found the company mentioned, but no significant coverage -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 3 March 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.