Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus (software)

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 merge to Reservoir simulation. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (software)[edit]

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: In and of itself reservoir simulation software is interesting since it is a specialized niche market and requires lots of computing power and (usually) parallel processing. But more sources are necessary to support this article, and none are obvious to me at this stage. Merge: Per Yworo. -- BenTels (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found some coverage of this in seemingly specialized sources: Petrominer: Petroleum, Mining & Energy, An Ensemble Kalman Filter Module for Automatic History Matching(!), SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, and Asian Oil & Gas. The previews available don't really suggest in-depth coverage. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reservoir simulation. Yworo (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be reasonable - maybe summarize the simulators that exist in that article. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reservoir simulation The software is verifiable, but I could find no in-depth secondary sources. I agree, merging this to the reservoir simulation article is the best choice here. Mark viking (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - a product in that field that does not appear to be independently notable. Mcewan (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mark viking (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (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.