- 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, though if I had my druthers I'd have first sent this to WP:PNT. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Xilinx ISE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Google News only returns press releases. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep because the software is a vital component to develop with FPGA on Linux. Other alternatives are simple very encumbered in comparision or simple don't have any free of use Linux offerings. Besides Xilinx was first with this kind of offer. And there is at least two Altera articles on the same software type that has been around for a very long time without challenges. "Xilinx ISE" gives 280 000 hits on Google, but Google is not the final answer to knowledge. Electron9 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About Altera: any comment on those will not be taken into account. As I've already pointed out, just because there are cracks in the system is no reason to widen the cracks. We'll deal with Altera separately. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it just like Blanchardb says. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Interesting software, well suitable for WP. WP's validity as an encyclopedia would be less without articles like this. scope_creep (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Interesting, perhaps. Suitable for WP, no, at least not until some notability is established. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very popular software, essential for developing with the most popular line of FPGAs. I used it in university. No, the page wasn't on my watchlist. It's hard to find a worthwhile reference in Google because the results are swamped with how-tos, academic course pages, vendors selling it, discussion threads about technical issues, etc. But there are a lot of hits, because a **lot** of people use it. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of great references found using GScholar and GBooks. Please stop using GNews to base your baseless assertions on. When looking for software (and not advertising) GScholar and GBooks are much better tools. (This also goes for Altera, BTW.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I didn't notice that before. What does Blanchard expect Google News to return? Potatoswatter (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised ;-) Wired, for instance, is listed there. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are implying that your methodology is not flawed on the basis that Google News indexes Wired, and Wired is a "technology" magazine, therefore Xilinx ISE, which is software, and thus technology, must also be covered, then your methodology is indeed flawed. Wired is Humanities meets technology—its scope is technology in culture and society. Xilinx ISE is electronic design automation software, it belongs in electronics engineering. Wired is also a general-audience publication. Xilinx ISE is software for professionals, and by that I don't mean that it us like Photoshop. I doubt that a one could do the simplest of things in Xilinx ISE without some background or experience in the relevant fields. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even just using Google as the final answer is quite limiting. There's Yahoo, Excite, and others. Other type of files like source codes etc. Then we have public libraries, research papers published before electronic publishing. News is also something that is new. Software that has been around for long isn't new, and thus is less likely to show up. The research method for this nomination seems flawed. Electron9 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's research method is merely flawed? Nominations based on such a terribly methodology should be dismissed. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised ;-) Wired, for instance, is listed there. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I didn't notice that before. What does Blanchard expect Google News to return? Potatoswatter (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never noticed he used gnews either. That's a terrible way to look for reliable sources, particularly for software companies and their product, and more so for open source companies that often don't make the news. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The primary software used for developing designs for the most popular FPGAs on the market, and therefore one of the most important pieces of EDA software on the market. JulesH (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Nominations like this one are disappointing. The nominator's argument that Xilinx ISE is not notable because there are no Google News results other than press releases suggests two things: feigned ignorance of what Xilinx ISE is or genuine ignorance of what Xilinx ISE is. Both are not desirable in a deletion debate. Understanding what one is nominating for deletion prevents poor-quality articles about notable topics from being deleted and it saves everyone a lot of time, both of which are beneficial for Wikipedia. I find the reliance on Google News to determine notability suspicious because it seems that the nominator is deliberately limiting the search to publications that are least likely to have coverage of this software. Is this a dodgy deletionist strategy or something more innocent? I would really like an explanation. By the way, I tried Google Books with "Xilinx ISE" as the search phrase and the first result I got was: Denton J. Dailey (2004), Programming Logic Fundamentals Using Xilinx ISE and CPLDs, Pretince Hall, 203 pages. I have not seen the book, but I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the book is an introduction to PLDs and using Xilinx ISE to design for them. I will look for more sources when I have the time. Rilak (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - Having not enough time to present multiple references when I was typing the above comment, I declined to state my position on the matter. I believe that the following references is sufficient to prove notability as it demonstrates independent third-party coverage published in reliable sources:
- Volnei A. Pedroni (2004), Circuit Design with VHDL, MIT Press. — Appendix B is instruction on the use of VHDL in Xilinx ISE.
- Pong P. Chu, (2008), FPGA Prototyping by Verilog Examples: Xilinx Spartan-3 Version, Wiley-Interscience. — As the title suggests, this book is instruction on FPGA design using a Spartan-3 as an example. Xilinx ISE is the design software used, and as such, contains significant coverage of the software throughout the book. I am looking at Section 2.5 (p. 21), which is an overview of the ISE Project Navigator, although there is coverage elsewhere.
- Gina R. Smith, (2010), FPGAs 101: Everything You Need To Know To Get Started, Newnes. — The book is non-trivial instruction on FPGAs, which includes the Xilinx ISE software. Note: I believe Newnes is an Elsevier imprint. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In light of the references found by HowardBGolden, I am tempted to withdraw this nomination. However, with two outstanding Delete !votes, I can't do that just yet. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The two outstanding delete votes are basically agreement with your position. They don't add any independent analysis. Therefore, I don't believe you need to consider them in your decision to withdraw. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of them, yes. The other I don't think so. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other vote provides no indication that its position was reached by looking at what realiable sources say. It appears that its position was reached by responding to a previous vote. Basically, it says, "Well, if someone says that the article should be kept because the article's topic is interesting, then the article should be deleted." Is this not flawed? Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not what I see in the argument in question, he was referring to the lack of a stronger argument to sway him to the keep side. I want this editor to decide whether his concern was addressed, and I can't make the decision for him. I've notified this editor, and I'm actually surprised he hasn't responded yet. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:50, 31 August 2010 (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.