Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CitectSCADA

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 redirect to Citect. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CitectSCADA

Non-notable software, reads like an ad. Closedmouth (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Comment - Could you possibly be more precise as to why this topic is not notable? If the article reads like an advertisement, then it should be revised, not deleted. A quick search at Google News for news related to this software with the term "CitectSCADA" returns four results in the past month:

A search for all dates with the same term returns 145 results. A search using the term "Citect SCADA" returns twice as many results for the past month in addition to all dates. I will not comment as to whether this article should be kept or deleted as my knowledge the field of industrial computing is inadequate, but all the sources found suggests that this software is of importance in industrial computing. Rilak (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my poor quality research, but the article does not make a single claim of notability or cite a single reference. It mostly consists of marketing speak describing why the software is so good, and not a word on why it is notable. If it is to be kept, it needs to be completely rewritten. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the fact that the article is poorly written with many problems and that it requires improvement. I may perform some basic improvements (spelling, grammar, tone, references) if the article kept. After doing some more research, it appears that CitectSCADA has a significant market share in Australia and South East Asia, if not the world as it has been acquired ("$80m offer for Citect", Australian IT, 19 October 2005) by Schneider Electric, a large global company. Considering the sources provided, I think that all the articles nominated for deletion to be ~~kept~~. Rilak (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I'm a bit shocked that such a prominent company has such an atrocious and neglected article. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable enough, even if the articles read like changelogs. Better idea would be to tag them for appropriate fixes. MediaMob (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ~~delete~~ merge all; as a person with extensive knowledge of these software products specifically, I endeavored to edit the articles and remove the puffery/ advertish, non-encyclopedic and change-log/ user-guide type material. I was left with nothing to save except categories and a single sentence listing-only style entry. I then pondered whether it would be possible to create an article about these software products that would contain encyclopedic information that would demonstrate notability and could be sourced to independent secondary sources. I determined that it was not possible. I suggest instead that these products and a brief description of them could be included in the relevant section of the current company's article (Schneider Electric), and redirects made to that article from these. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while I believe I've fixed the structure, I'm out of my depth with the changelog content but think it could be useful to someone who knows better. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Jerry. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - Per Jerry. The only reason why I suggested the article should be kept was because I had not assessed whether the article could be improved (apart from the basic spelling, grammar, etc). I obviously assumed that it was possible to improve the article, but it turns out that it cannot be improved. Rilak (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per Jerry's comment. I think a merge would be better than trying to rewrite the entire thing, since there's really nothing too much to salvage through the endless bad writing. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citect article repaired, CitectSCADA and Cicode content now completely redundant
Please add new comments below this notice. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect CitectSCADA and Cicode to Citect as this content would be completely out of context in Schneider Electric (especially as they continue to operate under the Citect branding) and is sufficiently notable on its own. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WikiScrubber has a point. Schneider Electric still maintains, I think, Citect as a subsidiary. If the articles for CitectSCADA and Cicode cannot be kept, it may be better if they are mentioned in Citect and not in Schneider Electric. I prefer to await more comments before changing my previous merge.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I never associated Citect with Schneider Electric anyway, until another editor mentioned it above. It is a very distinct operating entity. I guess merging Citect-related articles with Schneider would be like merging an article about the Uniform design history for the Red Sox to John W. Henry. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Citect per WikiScrubber. Rilak (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citect as per WikiScrubber. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:01, 2 September 2008 (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.