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. The article has been significantly improved since its nominations and seems to meet basic notability standards. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-DEAS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I could not find significant coverage in/by reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 03:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is apparently about a CAD program. Also obvious advertising, promotional to the point of borderline patent nonsense: Many I-DEAS users are transitioning, or considering transition, to a more current solution-set. One such transition path is to NX 5 which has enriched the NX product by incorporating many features of I-DEAS. Other users are transitioning through use of I-deas NX developed under Siemens PLM Software's I-DEAS Evolution of Excellence program designed to transfer and protect I-DEAS users' skills. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be improved to sound less like an ad, but there are pages of possible sources listed on google books for '"i-deas"' that establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is beyond repair but the system itself seems to be notable. A fresh start is needed to make this encyclopedic. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the stub. It no longer reads like an ad and asserts notability. ~~It uses only a single reference now.~~ More book references, mentioned above, should be added if they contain relevant material. --Karnesky (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 29. Courcelles (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article in its present state does indicate notability and has references (unlike the version afd'd in June). There seem to be plenty of other potential sources of material. Occuli (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure if it's notable, but the article much cleaner now thanks to Karnesky. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I-DEAS appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability per this Google Books search which includes sources such as this, this, and this. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as shown by Cunard it's notable. Dewritech (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ok, I'm convinced by Cunard's sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:22, 3 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.