Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller

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. Some concerns within the article have been addressed; presently there is no consensus in this discussion to delete the article. Additionally, regarding the comment about a potential merge, feel free to initiate a merge discussion on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller

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

Non-notable software, based on Google hits for "Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller", with or without the quotes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa is notable Structured Analysis Tool

The title of the article has been changed to Prosa Structured Analysis Tool, which correlates better with the content of the article. Also now the title has full words instead of acronyms which makes the title much more expressive. The article title fully conforms the Wikipedia recommendations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article.
—Largo Plazo has strongly justified the deletion on the basis of Google hits.

The search Prosa "Structured Analysis" Tool produces 1970 hits
The search Prosa "Structured Analysis" produces over 2000 hits

The results of the search are high quality articles, where exist also scientific articles and conference papers.

In the search one concept is Prosa. The second concept is "Structured Analysis". This already fully defines the intended search. You may add the third concept Tool, if you want. The search "Prosa Structured Analysis Tool" used by the user —Largo Plazo is incorrect, because it necessitates the concepts in a fixed order. E.g. the text "Prosa is a user friendly Structured Analysis software" does not produce a hit with that kind of narrow search.

3. Prosa is notable

Prosa is in every-day use in numerous notable companies all over the world in industries like telecommunications, automation, car manufacturing, machinery, banking, insurance, defence/military, etc. Prosa has established a leading position in the Structured Analysis tools (during the last several years).

Prosa Structured Analysis Tool is an important article and valuable content for Wikipedia users. The article deserves a position in Wikipedia.

Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For background to what Hannu is talking about, see our discussion at his talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge of this one and Prosa UML Modeller into a single article on both the company and its products? We generally do not create new articles on every product until it becomes notable (in the Wikipedia sense) by itself independently of the company. Generally arguments about notability are more persuasive if evidence of notability in the form of independent sources is included in the article citations. Generally it is easier to create one well-cited article that sticks around instead of two that go up for deletion. And of course we are not debating if the subject is "important" or "valuable" since those are subjective, but if the subject has independent sources. Company seems to be in Finland, but even sources in Finnish would be better if, for example, a local newspaper would cover them, or trade publications (beyond the "advertorial"). W Nowicki (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa Structured Analysis Tool is a itself a very notable tool in many areas of the technology. We have now added references to the article to prove that.

Structured Analysis and UML Unified Modeling Language are completely different kind of approaches and there is no reason to mix them in one article. Also Wikipedia has separate articles for them.

Keep Prosa Structured Analysis Tool in Wikipedia - it is valuable article for readers.

Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Temporarily) moved back to Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller while discussion in progress, per WP:AFDEQ. -- Trevj (talk) 14:56, 4 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The product has been about for about 23-25 years, which deserves an article alone, the article itself is well written, and it has primary and secondary sources, and you want to delete it. Why? scope_creep talk 00:20 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to delete it. I thought, after doing some searching, that it warranted deletion for the reason given above. At the time I initiated this discussion, there was no evidence in the article that the product is notable, there was no evidence via Google that anything with the name indicated by the article had been covered anywhere, and the article had no secondary sources. But that's what these discussions are for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been used by two separate groups on two continents, which I think satisfies WP:GNG and the secondary sources seem to valid. It has been on the go for half the time that software itself has existed. It deserves a page.scope_creep talk 11:58 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a lot of claims of notability, some of which incorrectly assume that notability is inheritable from, e.g., the company or the general software type. What I'm not seeing is citations to reliable sources that demonstrate notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eggishorn claims that the sources of our references are not reliable and they thus the references do not prove the notability. The authors of the articles are software professionals, researchers, scientists, journalists, etc. The reference list contains IEEE Software magazine, IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, IEEE European design automation conference paper, Microprocessing and Microprogramming journal, conference papers, etc. All those are really RELIABLE - every article has been reviewed by many professional independent reviewers. The references have been published in the most respected medias, conferences and other channels in the system and software engineering business and science. Every professional in this technology area knows and follows e.g. IEEE and quite many of them belong to the organization.

The other Eggishorn's claim is that we somehow try to inherit notability from, e.g., the company or the general software type. Prosa SA/SD/RT Tool V1.0 was released in year 1986. So Prosa is a pioneer and a technological innovator in SA/SD/RT tools and SA/SD/RT method development. Others may have inherited from Prosa. And Prosa has kept its strong position in SA/SD/RT.

Everyone must understand that the notability of this kind of special tool (Prosa SA/SD/RT Tool), which supports a special methodology (Structured Analysis) cannot be compared with notability of some general purpose tools like word processing software.

Keep the article and thanks. Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Firstly,everything has to pass the same notability guidelines, so special pleading on behalf of a subject doesn't make much sense.
Secondly, my comment has been turned on its head. I'm not claiming that the cites are unreliable. In fact, I wasn't claiming anything at all. What I intended was that, since the cites in the article were unconvincing to those that nominated this for deletion, those that want to keep it should be presenting more cites. Instead we just see multiple comments that say "It's important!" See, for example, this essay:"Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability".

Of the verifiable cites in the article now, one is a manual from the software company, and the other two are academic papers over a decade old. These latter two essentially just confirm the software exists and does some form of modelling. Surely there is some software or engineering trade paper with a mention or release announcement that is more recent that could be presented to bolster the case? Again, I'm not voting either way. I'm pointing out that repeating claims of notability without further evidence isn't going to help the case for preservation or the article itself. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One note for Eggishorn: notability isn't temporary. If references available from ten years ago would have sufficed to establish notability ten years ago, then notability persists to today and beyond. However, Hannu: the reference to the M. Tervonen presentation isn't an independent source because Mikko Tervonen is, along with Hannu Lehikoinen, a cofounder of Prosa. As for the last three sources, which are off-line, do they focus on the software itself, or do they just mention in passing that the software was among the tools that they used in performing the work they are discussing? —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I also know that ten and twenty-year-old references for supposedly-current software aren't considered persuasive by many other editors. So I thought perhaps pointing this out could explain to Hannu what he might need to address. Maybe I was wrong and three more 20-year-old cites would sway the day (technically, I suppose they should). I don't know. What I do know is that discussions about rules and claims about importance are secondary to additional evidence of notability. Additional evidence which, again, I don't think we've seen. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I initially intended to close this discussion, the discussion got too off-track to really have a good result. Having done my own evaluation of the sources, the sources cited are either instruction manuals, or mentions in passing in sources which are not about this software, but only mention and perhaps briefly review it as one possible piece of software that does this. Passing mentions do not establish notability and are insufficient to sustain a full article, and the length of time the software has been around is irrelevant to that as well. While not in itself a reason to delete, the article currently reads like a glossy brochure, and the dearth of reference material makes this largely unfixable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After calling for further references to support this article, they have not been forthcoming and I am unable to find any other substantive coverage. If, at a future time, the editors connected to this company can provide those references, then it should be able to be recreated with no prejudice (and keeping in compliance with WP:COI, of course). --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for adding at least one new substantive source, Hannu lehikoinen. The Nokia case study, while it has issues from a purely academic point of view, is enough to show that it is notable within the software design community.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issues raised above have been corrected in the article:

Notability issue: New reference added.
COI issue: Two reference list references, which you have raised to discussion, have been removed (SA/SD training manual + Tervonen's article). SA/SD training manual has been move to External Links.

Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 10:03, 4 December 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.