Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of online calculators

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. Taking into account the single-purpose and sock puppetry activity, there is a consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of online calculators

Comparison of online calculators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a mere list of external links - it has no sources independent of the article subject(s) and so does not meet the general notability criteria. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete. If it weren't for the charts, I would tag this {{db-empty}}. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong do not delete. Google and WolframAlpha are clearly notable in the field of online calculators. Any online calculator that competes with Google or WolframAlpha on the basis of features, must be covered by Wikipedia to provide an unbiased view of the field. This issue is similar to the compelling need for antitrust laws: to prevent one or two large corporations monopolizing a market for a given product or service. If Google and WolframAlpha are notable in the field of online calculators, and nobody disputes that fact, then any product or service that competes with them on features, is by definition also notable in the field. The article attempts to provide that needed balance, by showing how the contenders compare on features. However, the article would benefit from additional details on each tool. Wilomina (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Wilomina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - just a fancy WP:LINKFARM as only the Wolfram Alpha calculator is notable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong do not delete. With 190 million searches daily as of 2010, Google by far dominates search. As a reasonable estimate, the Google online calculator is probably queried 10 million plus times daily. WolframAlpha is notable on features alone, and perhaps also on number of daily queries. That makes them both notable, and the field of online calculators notable by extension, but the field is comprised of many more contenders than Google and WolframAlpha. Wikipedia needs to survey the field, and this article does that. Keep the article and improve it. Wilomina (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "the field of online calculators notable by extension" — "By mere extension" is not a valid notability argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Online calculators as a field, meet the WP General Notability Guidelines, due to the significant coverage they have received in all forms of reliable and independent media. Frenkky (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you point out some of this coverage? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• DeletePartial merge to Comparison of software calculators Linkfarm. As far as I can tell only Google and WolframAlpha are notable here, and we don't need a whole comparison article for the two. Wilomina does not seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The Wikipedia notability guidelines for lists of related items state, begin quote: "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." end quote. In other words, the fact that Google and WolframAlpha are notable in the field of online calculators is sufficient to warrant a WP article on that field. However, the other contenders in that field, do not need to rise to the same notability standard as Google and WolframAlpha, and importantly, the guidelines say that the best WP lists include red-linked items, that is, items that do not have WP articles devoted to them. Keep the article and enhance it. Frenkky (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Frenkky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been banned as a sock.
  • The guidelines do require that we show that the concept of an online calculator is notable though. Pointing to 2 examples (one of which (Google Search) is probably too general) is insufficient to prove this. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that the "Google Calculator" is available contextually via the Google search box does not change its singular function, which is to "solve" mathematical expressions that involve general arithmetic, roots, powers, logarithms, forward and inverse standard and hyperbolic trigonometric transforms, number base conversion from and to decimal, binary, octal, hexadecimal, and more. "Google Calculator" servers do not "search" for the answer on the World Wide Web. Instead, "Google Calculator" servers perform calculations, after they "understand" (through contextual analysis) the mathematical expression given by the user, and they send the result directly to the user. In other words, the "Google Calculator" is not "Google Search", even though both are accessed via the Google search box. This article deals with the "Google Calculator", not with "Google Search". Conflating the two is misleading. Frenkky (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Google Calculator" is used daily by 10 million or more people, and it is only a single member of the field or concept of "Online Calculators". Prior to the invention of online calculators those same millions of people were using electronic calculators and other tools for the same task. As such, the field constitutes a Paradigm shift in human behavior. That is by definition a notable field, which WP must cover with one or more articles. Frenkky (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "Notable" is a term of art jargon word with special meaning on Wikipedia which differs from common usage. As such, supposed paradigm shifts do not "by definition" confer notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The WP General Notability Guidelines state, begin quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", end quote. The "Google Calculator", WolframAlpha, and the general field of online calculators, meet those criteria due to the significant coverage they have received in all forms of reliable and independent media. In other words, online calculators as a field, meet the WP General Notability Guidelines. That is sufficient reason to keep this article. Frenkky (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • The topic is "online calculators" generally, not 2 specific instances thereof; you can't validly generalize to an entire class like that, you need coverage of the class itself, not its instances individually. And where has any significant coverage been pointed out? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly more than a mere linkfarm as has been claimed as there is analytic comparison of the features and differences presented through tabular representation of the data. It usefully complements the companion article, Comparison of software calculators. — O'Dea 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, that article has questionable notability itself. So tagged. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Much more than a link farm. Article should be groomed, not deleted. Issues with Comparison of software calculators are unique to that article, and should not be conflated with this one. Frenkky (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe this article could be merged into Comparison of software calculators as opposed to delete? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that any of these are notable; linkfarm. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Article complies with WP Notability Criteria. Significant coverage of topic, in reliable sources. A sample follows:
  • http://gpl.org/young-adults/homework-help
  • http://www.istl.org/03-summer/internet.html
  • http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/aerospace.html
  • http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster4/part80.html
  • http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators.html
  • http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Calculator
  • http://www.businessjournalism.org/pages/biz/online_calculators
  • http://distancelearn.about.com/od/onlineresources/Online_Resources.htm
  • http://mathforum.org/library/resource_types/applets/?keyid=34215985&start_at=301&num_to_see=50 RNBclyde (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)— RNBclyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been banned as a sock.
    • Comment I didn't say that lists of calculators didn't exist elsewhere. I'm saying that none of the individual calculators listed here meet any kind of notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete linkfarm which lacks any evidence of encyclopedic notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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.