Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open4D

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Star Mississippi 01:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open4D

[edit]

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

Open4D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Frap (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get where you're coming from. One thing to note, Open4D is so new, that Google Internet spiders have yet to even recognize it. The software is important in the field of physics and math, regardless of its current popularity.
I've worked to extend the article, and add some more important information. Can you tell me more about why you thought this article wasn't notable enough? DischerdDynne (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. New software with no in-depth sources, independent of the project, providing reliably published coverage of it (as would be required for WP:GNG-based notability). WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid reason for an article. I note also that the article creator, User:DischerdDynne, has redirected their user page to this article, suggesting the possibility that there is an undeclared WP:COI (which, if so, would violate Wikipedia's terms of use). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did originally draft the article in my User Page before moving it to the main namespace. I now understand that this may not have been the best approach and could be seen as a conflict of interest. That said, my intention was not to bypass Wikipedia’s guidelines, but rather to document an open-source project that I believe has potential notability. I’m open to improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s standards and addressing concerns, and I’d appreciate any guidance on how to do so properly. The article contains content that's important, and I want to pursue ways this can be addressed. DischerdDynne (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains important information on 4D physics, an emerging field of physics. While claiming an article to be “important” isn’t enough to keep the article, its content contains information that is encyclopedic in nature, regardless of a perceived notability or importance. 2600:1003:B15E:55BB:F0C2:1DC4:D1F0:D7C7 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry is against the rules of Wikipedia. Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to: creating an illusion of support, and posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator. Frap (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frap It seems you're accusing me (...?) of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. While I strive to prevent conflict of interest WP:COI, the original commenter, a colleague of mine, is a developer of Open4D. When you rejected creation of this article, he stepped in make the initial claim we see here. I was previously writing this article to support the library we're discussing. This is not sockpuppetry, but real support from a real individual. It is not meatpuppetry either, as this response was written on his own accord, being an individual involved in the project.
We should aim to provide real discussion, rather than unverified claims. There are plenty of articles on topics such as Stella4D or SageMath. These tools aren't popular, but as OP stated, articles should strive to be encyclopedic, not popular.
On another topic, your previous contributions have been vital to the quality of this article. Thank you for taking the time to improve the quality of this article. DischerdDynne (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, also see WP:CANVASSING. MarioGom (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing supports my previous claim. Their involvement was not biased. I did not ask of a specific opinion. Their message was short. Nothing was excessive. These are keys aspects of WP:CANVASSING that make this behavior acceptable. DischerdDynne (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep going on this. The IP user was improperly canvassed. You have a now disclosed COI. We can move on. No further action needed here other than others being aware of this, assuming there's not a continuing pattern of issues moving forward. MarioGom (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to come of as accusing because it is important that I am cordial and I have to assume good faith because not everyone knows the rules so I stated it in a way such that I inform about it, but when I compare how you write to the writing in the post from the IP address it does make me suspect that it is the same person. Frap (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. My apologies if I seemed harsh in my previous comment. DischerdDynne (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open4D&oldid=1279864098"