Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimuRide

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SimuRide[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Very little coverage from third-party sources with minimal depth of coverage. Mostly an advertisement for the software. Contested proposed deletion from many years ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that there isn't even really an article listed as a source for the release of the software concerns me. Dusti^*poke* 00:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the "third party sources" are strong enough to prove notability. The two decent looking sources are little more than advertising. The University news article is heavy on promotion and light on facts. The "academic paper" source is clearly a research proposal, with a single reference of its own. I'm certainly not convinced of the reliability of any of the given sources. External sources, not included in the article, don't contain enough depth - just brief mentions - to provide any further support to the claim of notability. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:31, 3 July 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.