Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modelio (3rd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modelio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Product does not demonstrate notability. It seemed to have a lot of references but when I followed them, they were either 404s or placed announcements (advertisements). The remaining links are simply announcements and company releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As suspected while I was doing this edit, this article has been nominated and deleted twice before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hello, I’m the page creator. I looked through the original references and realized that there were errors in some source URLs, hence the 404s. I’ve corrected and added them back for your review. I wouldn’t agree that these are advertisements (with the possible exception of one questionable source which I’ve now excluded) as they include third-party writings about Modelio in reputed, independent press publications like Datamation (English technical magazine) and in the French media (ITProNews IT news website). I also considered some other articles in the same category eg. Borland_Together, Poseidon for UML, Papyrus_(software), which have 0 references, and Enterprise_Architect_(Visual_Modeling_Platform), Dia_(software), PowerDesigner where the majority of the references are self-published. In contrast, the references in this article are current and from third parties/independent journalists (not self-published sources) therefore I'm hopeful that they qualify as suitable sources and enable the article to meet the notability requirement. Armand3496 (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As you commented, the article has a previous history of nomination and deletion. I was aware of this when creating the page, therefore I tried to be as objective and conservative as possible when creating the article text. Specifically, I only included content that could be read in external independent sources and omitted all discussion of features etc, although these can be found extensively on the product website (as my understanding is this is a self-published source). I’m new to Wikipedia and tried to read through all the relevant docs before posting the content. In case the above isn’t sufficient to remove the AfD tag, please suggest what else I can do to clean up the article and ensure that it isn’t deleted a third time. Thank you for your time.Armand3496 (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the references show enough notability. Walter Görlitz, please do more research before nominating something. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did my research. I actually read every press release listed as a reference, and general story where the subject was mentioned off-hand. There are no feature articles on the subject. Would you care to change your vote after reading the remaining, non-404 "references"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added references to various scholarly articles and papers that reference Modelio and its features. Armand3496 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2012 (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.