Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ILNumerics.Net

ILNumerics.Net

ILNumerics.Net (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)

The article is unambiguous advertisement. My request for speedy deletion was granted, although the article was restored when one contributor provided the following reasons: "The article exists for 10 years, addresses a technology used by an open source/commercial community of 25.000 users, won several awards". This reason itself sounds like advertisement to me. Also the "10 years" claim is inaccurate. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Topic does seem borderline notable, though: this article on MSDN discusses it and I'm able to verify the award. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwertyus: The MSDN article is about something with a similar name but not the same entity. Hint: The ILNumerics that MSDN talks about is free software. This one is non-free. See: http://ilnumerics.net/overview.html. I don't know if such a name collision can be legal, but a duck test fails here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Codename Lisa: looks like there was originally a GPL'd edition; see this Channel 9 post. The article used to say something similar: "After 6 years of open source development, the project added a closed source, proprietary license in 2011, aiming business and academic developers at the same time." QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ILNumerics.Net

ILNumerics.Net (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)

The article is unambiguous advertisement. My request for speedy deletion was granted, although the article was restored when one contributor provided the following reasons: "The article exists for 10 years, addresses a technology used by an open source/commercial community of 25.000 users, won several awards". This reason itself sounds like advertisement to me. Also the "10 years" claim is inaccurate. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Topic does seem borderline notable, though: this article on MSDN discusses it and I'm able to verify the award. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwertyus: The MSDN article is about something with a similar name but not the same entity. Hint: The ILNumerics that MSDN talks about is free software. This one is non-free. See: http://ilnumerics.net/overview.html. I don't know if such a name collision can be legal, but a duck test fails here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Codename Lisa: It is the same software. You can find out easily by reading the content of the referenced article. ILNumerics were developed and published under open source license several years. This is (and will always be) available still - free of charge. See the references to nuget in the reworked version of the article. Thanks Numbers303 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thanks Codename Lisa for bringing up the issue! The article indeed sounded a little advertising before. However, it would have been obvious by little research that a deletion would at least be controversal. Also, it is better to give the chance for improvement and discussion before considering speedy deletion. I appreciate your effort in helping to keep WP clean and in trying to be effective. Hoever, most parts of the article already contained useful information. I have just addressed the remaining issues and reworked the article. Numbers303 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]