Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RunMC

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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RunMC[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable software package created by a now-indef-blocked sock, who re-created it after it was prodded in 2007. The only reference is to a research paper which I assume is authored by (judging from the username) the sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Nom's points seem legitimate. My search only came up with one potential suitable source (someone with access to specific journals might get more) - Hera and the LHC Book. Unfortunately as a snippet view I couldn't make a good enough determination as to its suitability. Lacking determination either way, I believe a WD is the most detailed !vote I can give at this time. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see notability for Wikipedia. There are some references that acknowledge the existence (e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016764230800004X https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1118/1.3058480 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5945735/ ) but do not actually use it. May well be because of Wikipedia that they even mention it at all. Even within the narrow HEP domain, this does not appear to be notable work (no worth mentioning citation in 10 years); so it is not of encyclopedic notability. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are minimal sources out there and not much content in the page itself. I don't see how it can be expanded or is notable. Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It must be deleted as it has been created by a sock. The edit history cant remain. It a mandatory delete. scope_creep (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched and couldn't find any significant coverage beyond what Nosebagbear mentioned above. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 9 August 2018 (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.