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 delete. Policy-based arguments are solidly for delete. The canvassed views expressed here do not address the core issue of lack of independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MeKin2D[edit]

MeKin2D (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)

Author is publicising their own software package without any evidence of notability. Two of the three sources cited are self authored and the third behind a paywall. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

• Delete - not sufficiently notable. It may be worth including the remaining simulations in other articles where applicable. --Cadillac000 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is better sourced than, and at least as relevant as Graphmatica, KmPlot, C.a.R., Kig and DrGeo, while the simulations done with it are very useful to Wikipedia.Pasimi (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article describes mechanical simulation software that has served Wikipedia users very well by providing animated illustrations of mechanical devices on many different pages. The article documents the existence of this tool, which is appropriate and desirable. It does not advocate for or promote its use. The software is notable in that it is a lean effective simulation tool that is available at low cost. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to document software simulation tools like MeKin2D and CATIA, just like it documents other products such as the Ford Mustang and Cabbage Patch Kids. Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Special:Diff/820261302. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The simulation of the mechanisms developed by the author is very useful for teaching and understanding by the students of the principle of many mechanisms functioning. The program is useful both for didactic and research purposes, especially in the development of new mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.180.74.190 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.180.74.190 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 31.205.241.198 (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 31.205.241.198 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is very useful for students and specialists dealing with kinematic analysis and synthesis of mechanisms.T. Yankova, PU "P. Hilendarski" (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — striking sock !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Tsvl (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regrettably Cabayi is trying to invalidate any favorable vote cast in this matter. In turn I would like to call the attention upon the fact that, according to his/her Wikipedia contributions, the only negative voter so far does not have sufficient expertise in the subject of MeKin2D. In my view, Wikipedia rule changes are stringently necessary in order to clear more easily disputes like this present one:
• There should be some rule changing regarding the deletion of articles, because self serving Wikipedia edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put Wikipedia on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only!
  • (1) With certain exceptions, new articles should be allowed a given number of months to mature before they are proposed for deletion. Better yet, articles (new or old) should be reviewed for deletion periodically, based on their low traffic.
  • (2) Voting in an article-deletion case should NOT be permitted to unregistered users.
  • (3) Users known to have added content to articles of the same categories as the article proposed for deletion should be invited automatically to cast their vote. In this respect the following features should be implemented by Wikipedia developers:
  • (4) The edits of registered users should be metered and used to build a database of users' expertise. An expertise rank should be easily retrievable with user's name, with the possibility of displaying it on the user page.

Note that user:simiprof and user:pasimi are the same. Simiprof (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can assess an article's worth without having significant experience in the topic area. That does not automatically invalidate the oppose itself. The simulations are very good; the point still stands that the majority of the newly introduced sources are behind a paywall and the others are self-authored. --Cadillac000 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind this Wikipedia rule on notabability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." And then this: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I will also add that pointing out other self-promoting articles or other articles without notability is not an argument that this article qualifies as notable. - Rectorsquid (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Rectorsquid: As mentioned on the talk page, it is apparent that your recent developments to Linkage software resemble closely existing features of MeKin2D. To me this is a an indication that MeKin2D has gain notability! In addition we are dealing with a Streisand effect about Linkage's recent developments.

• Dear Simiprof, I had never heard about this software until you linked to my page in an attempt to get me to vote to keep your Wikipedia page from being deleted. There are many features in many software packages that are the same. That does not make them notable. On Wikipedia, notability is determined by citations, not from being similar. for instance, I have a blue car and others have blue cars. That does not mean my blue car is notable, it means that some cars are blue. For the record, the only software package I consulted for idea for the Linkage software was Corel Draw and only to get idea on how to make it work like an illustration program, not a typical CAD program. I wish to be left out of your Wikipedia conflict. Feel free to delete or obfuscate and references to my software if you think that I am trying to gain notability through this conflict. - Rectorsquid (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that user:simiprof and user:pasimi are the same. Simiprof (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 2607:FEA8:419F:F7F8:C96B:23A8:AD89:6219 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2607:FEA8:419F:F7F8:C96B:23A8:AD89:6219 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find evidence in reliable sources that this software has been widely adopted. Two hits on Google Scholar, with one citation between them — that's simply not enough to go on. We cannot write articles without independent sources that indicate the significance of the subject matter. Those sources might well exist in the future, but they don't exist now. None of the paywalled references written by people other than Simionescu concern this software in particular. Contrast this situation with, for example, PyMC3, a scientific software package that was AfD'ed not too long ago. In that case, there were book chapters written about the software, and plenty of scientific papers that used it.

  Moreover, the opening paragraph is a copyvio of [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is clear that this article is intended to help this software gain notability, not to reflect any existing notability. I have been working on software to do similar functions for the last 15 years and have researched what software already exists as a means of determining what is common in this area. I have never heard of or seen a reference to this software before being dragged into this conflict. Rectorsquid (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2018 (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.