- 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 speedy keep, with no prejudice to another nomination by someone who wants the article deleted. This procedural nomination has achieved it's objective.Chaser - T 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy (advertising and conflict of interest issues). Bringing here for more consideration under that and notability concerns and whatever else people want to bring up. Please do not re-speedy this; a wheel-war is unnecessary. No opinion yet. Chaser - T 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. Seems pretty clearly notable to me. --Masamage ♫ 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep this nomination included no grounds for deletion whatsoever. Rklawton 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's procedural; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryulong. --Masamage ♫ 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't think there's anything wrong with having articles on notable scientific software, and we have it on other examples of the general class... Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, it needs some cleanup and wikifying, but the subject appears to be notable. As for the COI complaint, it does look like a NASA employee is the author, but COI isn't grounds for deletion. NASA isn't selling anything - there's a link to download the code for free - so I don't see how it can considered advertising. —Travistalk 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article just needs work. It is highly inappropriate to delete on account of a possible COI. Please AGF and judge by content, not contributor. Acting based upon COI is not necessary (if the person is making bad edits, it doesn't matter that they have a COI), and can actually drive away or piss off editors with a knowledge/expertise in the subject. The Behnam 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. J Readings 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though God forbid we should encourage people from NASA to write about science projects on Wikipedia just in case it crowds out all the fourteen year olds scribbling about their favourite wrestler. Nick mallory 01:53, 14 August 2007 (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.