- 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 delete. Speedy deleted by DGG, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WELSIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable software product. No sign WP:GNG or any SNG is met, and all sources are primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I cannot understand, some Wikipedia pages use all primary sources but still keep alive. While a newly created WELSIM page with solid evidence including website, government documents, pictures, trademark, and 3rd party links will be deleted. For example, the page of "Abaqus" majorly cites its own website, the first citation of Forbes is even invalid. The page of "JMAG" has totally three citations but two are broken and one refers own website. The page of "JCMsuite" cites many journal papers but cannot be verified unless you have full access to those journal papers. The page of "RFEM" only has two citations which all links to own website. The page of "Quickfield" even does not have the citation at all. I fully understand that spam and fraud should be removed. However, WELSIM is a bona-fide product with solid evidence and can be kept in the Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goeasyon (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: WelSim is a quite useful FEA program, our team uses it for complex structural analysis and get precise solutions.Its affordable price and solid quality can benefit every innovative organization in research and development.A good product and valid brand should be known by the mass through Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.104.3.194 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in its current form. It sort of looks like promotional entry, there is not a single 3rd party reference indicating relevance of the software, so WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2017 (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.