- 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. MBisanz talk 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Irap_RMS_Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Delete non notable software Mayalld (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The field of oilfield development may seem obscure to the layman and the number of participating companies may be small but all activities and the tools involved are important and notable as long as they involve current use on today's oil leases. The article does look like a stub and is apparently cut and paste, but that's not enough reason to delete it.Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Looks like this article is less than a day old. Would it be appropriate to delete an article about software that has been around for a few years just because the article is just being started? Why not wait and see if the article shapes up first? Otherwise it would just look like somebody is just trying to suppress oilfield industry articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Walkhouse (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertisement Sceptre (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although I don't know whether or not this one fails the notability test, it still reads like an advertisement. Matt (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:N and WP:Advertisements 45ODY(Blether, Behavior) 08:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Once again, I'll point out that this article has only been here for a single day, and according to the guidelines:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion
- Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
- That alone closes this AfD. A cleanup template has already been added by "Who then was a gentleman?" And I have started working on it. If you don't like the way it looks, join in and edit it. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note In reading the article and with a search on the web, It is clear to me that this software suite has been in active development for over twenty years and is being used in the field. I also see that mastery of this beast is worthy of mention in the resumes of professionals like this guy: C.D. (SAM) JOHNSTON, Seismic Interpreter So, it appears notability is not a problem and all this new article needs is a cleanup to justify removing the Advert tag. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend userfication into the author's userspace. Then, even if consensus results in deletion, the author can remain working on the article until it is good enough to warrant inclusion. MuZemike 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had considered that too but he may have left, disappointed by the quick deletion of another brand new article and the AfD on this new article before he had a chance to do any significant work. If Mafb09 never comes back, can I volunteer to adopt the thing? If so, can I also take that other one (RMS (reservoir software)) which was speedily deleted? Environmental concerns around the oilpatch are rapidly becoming a hot topic and this info could be needed soon by all sides. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article and removed the Advert tag. Gathering of more data and external references will come next. Do any of you folks consider this one rescued yet? ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The software package is notable for a wikipedia entry, but article needs rewrite. --Berland (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Currently working on demonstrating notability, there are a good few sources to be found. I am working on rewriting too. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Many references are not suitable for actual inclusion in the article, but the sheer amount of coverage in third party publications indicates to me that this is a notable product. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Certainly notable, sloppy nomination. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:02, 22 March 2009 (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.