Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Data Vision

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. Courcelles 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Data Vision

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Created by a COI editor. Of the "references", one is a pdf file which does not mention Vista Data Vision, and the others are links to web sites which use the software: not one of them is a source about the subject. Essentially a spam article for a non-notable product. PROD was contested by the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, potential spam, and lacks sufficient sourcing to establish notability. The Army Corps link is a good start, but discussion in additional at least 1 additional reliable print source is needed. Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 10 September 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! 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Google News and Books draw a blank. Google Scholar has 2 hits, but one looks like an incidental mention, and the other is not independent. According to the article this has been around since 1991, which raises the possibility of historical or technical importance. The article is refreshingly concrete in the detail it goes into about how this program is actually used and works. But I'm not finding multiple significant sources here. Would be open to persuasion that this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I previously PRODed the article for the same concern. ialsoagree (talk) 17:16, 10 September 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.