This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page should not be speedy deleted because it is an article about a software product which is often used especially in automotve industreis (e.g. Daimler, Volkswagen, MAN). It is not an article aobut a company. This is why CSD A7 cannot be applied here - CSD A7: [...]This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. [...] Furthermore, after Easter I will add another reliable, secondary sources about the topic published in a journal about FE-Simulation.

• Hobramski, I thought to extend here about the style issues I mentioned at the AfD. First let me point that I'm not a very experienced editor and this is my own opinion, based on my understanding of the available policies, guidelines and essays, and I encourage you to become familiar with them as that will assist you greatly with your editing (I'll put some links all together below). Now, let's pretend the discussion was finished with the subject being found notable. The next step is to wonder by what and how is the subject notable, since that points to what is significant about it. Not everything that may be written about the subject is necessarily appropriate, for example the list of features of the software are out of place since the article is not meant to provide the reader with knowledge about what the software can do (not to say that features are not to be mentioned at all, and one of those features might just be the reason the software is significant, but normally to provide any detail beyond a bare description is actually the vendor's job, as it is for them to provide their own channel for that, i.e. their website). It is more pertinent to the article to let the reader know what the software is, how it came to be, and how it has affected society (maybe, in this case, referring to the informatics/engineering subsociety). The second thing to address is that the article should not promote or advertise the subject or related entities. The very line that separates a neutral statement from an advertisement may get very much blurry, so it is necessary to exercise judgement. To be blunt, most of the content reads like a sales brochure, where there is an attempt to convince the reader that the subject is a favorable choice for their FE analysis needs. It's not that the sentences are blatantly commercial, but once again focus is placed upon the characteristics of the software itself instead on the software's impact on its environment. On a related note, I don't know if you have any relationship, other than mere interest, with either the subject or the developers. Having such relationship in itself is not a reason not to edit, and it is by no means forbidden. It is discouraged though, or to be more precise it is in the spirit of Wikipedia that we avoid conflicts of interest whenever possible so to make sure to maintain a neutral point of view. And finally, a minor thing, you are using references to declare certain trademarks, which is unnecessary. References are needed to support claims made by the content, especially those that may be subject of question. Matter-of-fact claims, as it could be "Since 2001 the support and the development of MEDINA takes place by T-Systems International GmbH" may not be hard pressed to require verification, but something like "FE-models MEDINA is a widely used pre-/postprocessor for FE analysis especially in automotive industries" most certainly needs to point to a source making that claim themselves (not to a source that barely shows that the software is widely used, unless it is some sort of official listing or ranking). Here are some links that are useful readings: WP:5P (the five pillars), WP:NOT (what WP is not, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE), WP:MOS (manual of style, mostly technical), WP:SPAM (no advertising), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), WP:COI (conflict of interest), WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:WORDS (use of superlatives et al) - frankieMR (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]