Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marine Software Engineering

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Marine Software Engineering

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

Deleted as uncontroversial and undeleted by request. The term is defined by the Marine Software Engineering Cluster of Excellence, the subject of another AfD, and does not meet the general notability guideline. Article is unreferenced. I was unable to locate independent, secondary sources. Single mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar are in name only. Google News results are all to "Marine Software Engineering Cluster of Excellence." Pnm (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this could honestly go to speedy deletion and I don't think any sane person would argue. It makes no real claim to notability, is unreferenced, and is extremely spammy. Thanks, but no thanks. l'aquatique[talk] 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Software Engineering is used by a fast growing open source community in the marine sector. The article is being improved by the whole community and already meets clearly the requirements in the general notability guideline. Being a personal user I am surprised on how this community driven initiative is treated. If anyone thinks the article is spammy I would suggest that the person improves the article. Teakboy42 (talk) — Teakboy42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. There are no references, and the tone is that of an advertisment. It seems likely that it was created by a person with a conflict of interest. Even if sources were found, it would need a full rewrite by someone else. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: not sure what to make of this... diff. I'm not sure G7 qualifies as the article is rather old and has had many editors. Any thoughts? l'aquatique[talk] 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since the article's creation, there have been significant content changes (as opposed to wikignome activity) so I don't think an author requested speedy deletion is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm inclined to agree. The more I think about this, the problem I see (beyond the spammy-tone) is that it has a hugely broad title but is entirely from the perspective of one single not-terribly-notable Maltese organization. I find it hard to believe that MARSEC-XL has the market cornered on marine software. If we're going to have an article about this subject, it's going to have to be a lot broader l'aquatique[talk] 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable sources covering this discipline -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too little content, no external referencing, too promotional in tone. Is marine software engineering doing anything distinctive from software engineering for high-reliability systems in general? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There may well be a a viable topic with Maritime software [1], [2], [3] are sort of about it. However, the article we have here is not about marine software engineering, but is really an extension of MARSEC-XL. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't regard any of those three refs as really supporting marine software engineering as a separate discipline. One is about surveillance, which is more about radar processing and avionics, the other two are an outgrowth of marine engineering, already well established in its own right.

It's likely that marine software engineering is a discipline (and if it is, it would be a notable one), but if we're to have an article that is a pathetically self-evident tautology and no more, then we have to demonstrate this effectively. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unreferenced and not a recognized type of software engineering. --B (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2011 (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.