Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulations Plus

{{ns:0|O}}

:{{la|Simulations Plus}} ([{{fullurl:Simulations Plus|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulations Plus}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Page appears to be an attempt to circumvent reverts of links from various articles to company's webpage by attempting to establish notability. Company's software does not appear widely used. Article makes broad claims regarding use by citing a couple primary sources, which doesn't seem sufficient to me. EagleFalconn (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

: Delete For the above reasons. See also User talk:EagleFalconn#Removed links, company employee's primary justification for keeping the article/links appears to be that such links are common on Wikipedia. Fails WP:OTHERSTUFF. EagleFalconn (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Dear Sir, Company's software is being used by almost every major pharmaceutical company in the world. Hence it is widely used in its niche. In fact, GastroPlus is the primary product used for pharmacokinetic simulation. All of this is verifiable. Software made by Simcyp, our major competitor, is used by even smaller number of companies, but you have never considered their page, as well as Simcyp Simulator for deletion, have you? If not, then you would clearly show favoritism towards one company, but not the other.

By the same token, Companies listed on NASDAQ category contains hundreds of Wiki pages about commercial entities. Such as another major competitor Accelrys. Simulations Plus is just one of them. Why single it out? Hence, if you want to be fair, then along with deleting Simulations Plus page you should also delete all of the NASDAQ pages.

• Delete NASDAQ argument is specious. Question is to keep or delete this article. Not notable, COI, and blatant advertising. --*Quartermaster (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment. Though I still think this is a Delete I've gone ahead and edited the article in an attempt to make it more encyclopedic and less a marketing blurb. Specifically, a bulleted list of the software products, without including claims as to their efficacy. Separate articles on each piece of software should probably stand alone (if it can, and if its notable enough). This is OBVIOUSLY a work by interested parties who don't understand wikipedia, but the company likely deserves a stand-alone article. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Article appears to be mostly spam for a drug company. Also, I suggest a review of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there are issues with other articles, they can be addressed at those other articles. TN‑X-Man 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Arguments used by User:Quartermaster and User:Tnxman307 seem to be WP:JNN and WP:UGH given without much justification. The article is not a spam, it is a legitimate description of commercial entity (although it should be toned down in description of its products, but not deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.182.120 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is established through the references (I added some) and through the company's accomplishments. The nominator's statement that "Company's software does not appear widely used." appears to be incorrect. Within its niche, the software is widely used. The term spam is not appropriate in this case. If there are style issues, they can be resolved by copy-editing, not through deletion. The fact that the article's creator uses arguments that are generally recognized as unhelpful does not detract from the fact the company is notable, and that the article should therefore be kept. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:CommentEastmain could you expand on what is notable in this case? At the moment the references and links are to generic information like the NYTimes piece or press releas/marketing information (an online store company profile and the three "articles" from Business Wire; Medical News Today; and bNet - all actually reprints of press releases). While I'm not a believer that only things widely covered by the mainstream press are suitable for inclusion I'm not greatly influenced by stuff that is basically good marketing either. I was wondering what specifically makes this company notable. -- SiobhanHansa 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment You should look into the article history if you're interested. In a recent edit attempt to make the article more encyclopedic, User:Quartermaster removed some references to some primary sources and some other news articles that might be considered better sources for notability. EagleFalconn (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::CommentThanks - that's much more enlightening. -- SiobhanHansa 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I know this isn't criteria for deletion, but I feel it is worth noting that the IP 71.160.182.120 added the comment directly above Eastmain's without signing and also deleted Quartermaster's comment above and seems to have (poorly) attempted to turn it into a keep vote. Please see article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSimulations_Plus&diff=229319822&oldid=229310174 diff]. To the editor who owns the IP: Please do not attempt to change the contents of pages and hope we will not notice. Wikipedia keeps extensive page edit histories. EagleFalconn (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep based on company's notability, but agree strongly with EagleFalcon's warning. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by IP 71.160.182.120. Mr. EagleFalconn draws very quick conclusions with an amazing speed. Yes, I have added comments in this discussion to explain some misunderstandings and present essential arguments. I have never been hiding myself; although I am new to Wikipedia, I'm pretty well aware of the "history" tab. It's not obvious to me if there are any separate mechanisms for posting messages here (are there?), hence I have been using the "edit" tab. The extra "*Keep" was inserted by mistake, for which I apologize. (From IP 71.160.182.120) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.176.251 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have never been hiding myself... Contributing from an IP address is not a hanging offense, a problem, or a prohibition against contributing to Wikipedia. However, it IS undeniably a mechanism for masking one's identity. The claim I have never been hiding myself is not supported. Independent of eventual "keep" or "delete" disposition, this is an article worth responsible and neutral oversight in order to avoid conflict of interest and advertising spam abuse of wikipedia. Company may very well be notable enough for an article (I will accept without malice the group decision) but it is patently obvious that anonymous, and interested, parties are involved here. FYI, I have nothing to do with this company, its competitors, or the pharmaceutical software industry whatsoever. -- Quartermaster (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::To the IP editor: There is nothing wrong with using an IP, nor using the edit tab to leave messages. In the future please sign your messages using four tildes in a row like this: ~~~~. However, contributing to an article about (I presume) your employer without disclosing your conflict of interest (though admittedly you may not have known to do this or how) is disengenuous. Furthermore, the reason I assumed bad faith in my prior assessment and the reason (I suspect) JamesMLane agreed with me was because the tone of your contributions and the quality of your English improved dramatically in that post. Its suspicious. In any case, the merits of this article have nothing to do with the merits of its contributors. Full disclosure: I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry before as an analytical chemist for 1 summer 3 years ago. See my userpage for more information. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Almost all Nasdaq listed companies are likely to be notable, IMO opinion this one is. RMHED (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.