Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry Expressions Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geometry_Expressions

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 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Expressions

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability of this product. Kelly ^hi! 11:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best source I could find was this, but I don't think that's enough. Article as it stands has hints of promotionalism and too mcuh of a how to, with no independent sources. Polequant (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are mostly self-published, and article is more like a promotional sales brochure or manual than an encylcopedic article. Agree with above aruments as well.New Media Theorist (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply having a software program available on a site does not really provide notability, unless it is the subject of instruction at major universities or widely in school systems. The essay, not a guideline, at Wikipedia:Notability_(software) can be instructive. Here, we do not have significant coverage, just one good review at Questia. --Bejnar (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2015 (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.