Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulsonix

Add links
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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsonix

[edit]
Pulsonix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail WP:CORP. A Google did not yield much other than the usual promotional hits and very thin run of the mill coverage that does not satisfy GNG. Beyond which the article appears to be an advertisement by a naked COI - SPA. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the Overview section qualifies as blatant ad, no reliable sources are presented that cover the product (two refs are the company's own site, the third doesn't mention Pulsonix). It's WP:PROMO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I find no substantive coverage via Google, and the one reference given in the article doesn't support the claim of rave reviews, Pulsonix being mentioned nowhere in it. Besides that, what is the Hermes project, and would a rave review by one customer amount to general notability? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Weak keep Based on the additional sources (thanks, 91.125.182.5), I am, at least, not convinced of the unreasonableness of the product's coverage here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (moved to Neutral per discussion later in this thread) Analysis of sources as of [1] revision:
    1. Elektronikpraxis - I almost bought into this as a valid source, until I realized that it was written by an engineer at the company that makes the product - technotron. The independence of this is I think debatable, after investigating more, the claim I made here is incorrect, technotron appears to be a seller of Pulsonix. Note the technotron at the bottom here and the relationship between the two apparent in the discussion at [2] This is signficant and detailed coverage, I think the question boils down to whether we believe it's independent.
    2. elettronicanews - appears to be a warmed over press release
    3. ATS - passing mention doesn't rise to "signficant coverage"
    4. DIYDrones - probably does not meet our journalistic oversight hurdle to qualify as a WP:RS
    5. Elektronikpraxis (PCB-Design in MCAD exportieren) feels like a press release of a single new feature annoucement, and is a little weak on significance, a little weak on independence as a result. I think it's plausible to think people could differ on this one.
    6. passing mention of "Pulsonix"
    Of course, I am open to further discussion and analysis. (Struck part of my own comment here for incivility.) -j⚛e deckertalk 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joe Decker Cheers, my $0.02:
    1. Elektronikpraxis - The name at the bottom is a footnote from the asterisked byline that has two names. Kucera is the editor (or journo there whatever) of Elektronikpraxis; Schulte, is an "applications engineer" at German distributor technotron (programmer/tech person basically). I read it as having someone at whoever makes/distributes what is highly technical software (and speaks your language) to contact with queries being cited as a courtesy (or perhaps a German thing?).
      By contrast, I have also seen rehashed press releases there, although much older. One reason I discarded [3] was it had the name Peschges-plus-phone number at the bottom who Pulsonix.com's press release page 2006-ish mention as a then reseller. I'd distinguish it from the ref used in the article.
      The other link you gave is part of a 15-article series (or 21 parts) on the ins-and-outs/industry trends where they had a 'panel of experts' of various types (one on circuit boards (manufacture?), one on assembly (putting chips/components on them) and one on layout/design including CAD (who works for a vendor--technotron, who sell several pcb design tools in Germany--in training, sales and, translating technical documentation). It looked well-researched when I read it in gtranslate. I saw no focus on any vendor's products, other companies' products e.g. Allegro were mentioned; even when Pulsonix appeared in one page which the technotron person was cited as having helped with, it was on a screenshot caption. The magazine appears independent.
    2. elettronicanews - Hmm. I wasn't too sure about this one either way. It goes beyond a press release 'foo will now distribute in $country' style that sometimes includes a soundbite by said new distributor; on the other hand I can see why you say that.
    3. ATS - you mean SMTA, right? I removed ATS added by the COI-creator as it wasn't much good and didn't mention the software. It's about the EU Hermes project overall with the software a small part and Pulsonix singled out as a passing mention, though it's more *what* they said "Confronted with this situation the consortium contacted the most important EDA tool suppliers and convinced them to support Hermes. This consists of the following EDA tool suppliers: Cadence, Mentor Graphics, Pulsonix and Zuken. The first activity was the evaluation of the capabilities of the tools...blah. Brief though yep.
    4. The DIYDrones one is a blog authored by the editor in chief of Wired magazine. I think for software & technology this qualifies the ref as an RS under WP:SPS. -- 91.125.29.135 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply, I'll match my numbers with yours here:
      1. I'd intended in my original point 1 to only refer to ref 1 in the article. I'd believe "application engineer at a distributor", that's well-within the realm of what I was seeing. I only pointed at the other page (one of your refs) to document the appearance of a connection between the two. I don't know that line of business, the high-end equipment manufacturers in my own industry do have fairly tight and financially-driven, incentive-driven relationships with their distributors, but that may not be the case here (because I"m in a different industry and/or a because I'm in a different country), that was just my intuition. I don't have a problem a priori with the publication, it seems reputable.
      2. Fair.
      3. ATS/SMTA : Yes, that's right. I pulled "ATS" from the domain name on the URL.
      4. DIYDrones. Excellent point. Chris Anderson (writer) is no longer, according to our article, EIC of Wired, but that doesn't really matter, he was for many years, and more importantly, he is certainly someone with some authority in this field. As such, I consider that coverage that goes towards notability.
      I'm pulling back to at least neutral for now based on your responses and such. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Joe Decker: Thanks for reply (my IP's changed btw:). Agreed on Wired point, I think (?) he was ed. back when the blog entry was written anyhow. I hadn't really noticed the ATS thing; just found it on google scholar. I checked SMTA's site (an industry body in that field) and they don't provide free fulltext access so may as well link to the ATS copy. 91.125.182.5 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On balance it meets the bar set in WP:GNG and principles in WP:BASIC. Some of the better sources being, Elektronikpraxis and the DIY Drones one by Wired magazine then-editor, Chris Anderson. I added other potential sources I found onto the Talk page, and all in all they establish sufficient notability. --91.125.29.135 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NatGertler, Largoplazo, Dialectric, Czarkoff, and Davey2010: I did some work on the page. I've done as much as I can to improve the text and find 3rd party RSs. I added refs from EDN magazine [4], some Russian journal [5], and Elektronik [6], another German tech magazine. EDN had a few more articles covering it but I didn't understand what they said so... Also had a stab at explaining the Hermes EU/European Commission thing. I removed nearly all of the SPA creator's text except the features list. The topic's a bit too technical for me, hopefully I didn't introduce any mistakes. (pinged prev participants). 91.125.182.5 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; it is clear that some good effort has been put into this page, and that it is no longer the page that it was when I cast my earlier !vote. However, I do not have time at the moment to evaluate the new sources; in deference to the effort, I have struck my earlier !vote. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pulsonix&oldid=1080020309"