Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXMACT

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. It is interesting to note that WP:NSOFT is referred to both in support of deletion and in support of keeping. That page is an "essay", i.e. a page giving the personal opinions of some editors, and it carries little weight against the other arguments, based on Wikipedia guidelines. It is, however, perfectly true that the notability or lack of notability of the company is irrelevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EXMACT[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article is very promotional, and I can't find any independent sources to verify its notability. Fails WP:CORP/WP:PRODUCT. clpo13_(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is about a product we think that company notability is not important as noted in WP:PRODUCT. Therefore we think WP:CORP should not be applied. Notability of software is defined at WP:NSOFT. At least one of 4 points is required. EXMACT meets at least "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." We think it meets also "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." but of course it depends on definition of reliable sources. We think that a scientific conference and Czech Department of Industry can be considered as reliable sources.Pahlo7 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSOFT. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any references to this software in a search of Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News–which implies that this software has likely received no attention from high quality reliable sources. Until such time as this software receives attention in published books, academic papers, the news media, etc, it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. (If, at some point in the future, it were to receive such attention, it might become sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a result.) SJK (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2017 (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.