Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DGtal (software library)

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 moved to Draft:DGtal (software library). There is consensus to delete, but also an assertion that the article has been improved, with the implication that it can be improved further. Moving it to draft space will allow it to either be improved, or cause it to be deleted as abandoned if no improvements are forthcoming. bd2412 T 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGtal (software library)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. The only source in the article is the README file on the project's GitHub site. There are a couple of low-citation papers shown in GScholar which refer to the package only one might be about it rather than noting use of the package. Jbh ^Talk 18:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source in current article. My cursory BEFORE fails to find additional ones of substance and depth outside of it. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one source for now. That's how a Wikipedia stub is born. More to come. M. B., Jr. (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not. You can create an article in the "Sandbox" from your talk page while you research and write e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M._B.,_Jr./DGtal_(software_library) then move it to the non-user space when it's ready (like we used to do it in the old days) or you can follow WP:AFC - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not demonstrate notability. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything notable on the subject. One award that is not notable on its own, does not make the winner of that award notable.VViking_TalkEdits 13:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm really glad users like you gents exist on Wikipedia, and make it respectable. The point is DGtal's an open source library which was granted the prestigious Geometry Processing award (yes, it will be mentioned in the article). We're talking about an ACM symposium. If this is not notable, then what would it be? It should not be a problem to write a wiki article about such a grand academic code. M. B., Jr. (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is an open source library, that doesn't make it notable. While the Symposium on Geometry Processing is notable enough that it has its own WP page, the actual award does not, that is what I meant by notable. There are very few Reliable Sources outside the specific press releases of this one event. This is why my response to this AfD was delete. Now if you have RS that you can provide and make the article better that is great you should do it. Finally I suggest being careful with how you phrase things when responding to individuals. The way I read your first sentence above is that it is sarcastic the meaning the exact opposite of what you really said. To me I find this as being not very civil specifically that part about Avoiding condescension. But again that is just my interpretation. VViking_TalkEdits 13:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Viking. Thanks for your input. Not sure whether I understood the sarcasm part but I'm sorry if I have offended someone, somehow. Anyway, the award is a part of the symposium. Plus, many important scientific gatherings happen outside mainstream media scope. Oh and I've asked DGtal community to help with the article. Probably we'll have more notable references by Monday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. B., Jr. (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be useful for anyone who wishes to improve this article to review other Wikipedia pages on scientific and mathematical software. For example, PyMC3 demonstrates the notability of its subject matter by citing peer-reviewed research that made use of the PyMC libraries, and also by citing textbooks that use them as standard tools. If the software's creators publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal introducing their work, and that article becomes highly cited, then that's a good sign. Coverage in the science/tech press can also be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello XOR'easter Thanks for this useful comment. I will try to improve the Wikipedia article using your suggestions in the course of the weekend. So far I quickly added a few references to papers that used DGtal, etc. Pkacper (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brimkov & Barneva (2012) has reasonable depth, and the many other cited and uncited sources indicate widespread use by researchers, indicating significance in its field. I would also note that this article was nominated for deletion fresh from creation and has improved substantially during this discussion. Daask (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks enough reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG. The article is also very promotional in nature, lauding the company's offerings but not demonstrating notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 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.