Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software for calculating π

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 no consensus. The consensus lies between merge and keep, but it's not clear which one has the overall consensus. Discussion should continue at talk:Software for calculating π to discuss the merits of a merge. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software for calculating π

I'd say that any piece of software that merely calculates pi (and/or other fundamental constants) is presumably not notable, and not very interesting without source code. PiFast is claimed to be "a popular benchmark in the overclocking community", but there is no source to back it up. It would be notable if used as a benchmark by multiple computer magazines. This article could probably be replaced with a link to "Stu's pi page" on Computing pi, which is a better place to explain how to calculate many more digits than can fit in RAM. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository ... Magnus Holmgren (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Numerical approximations of π. Reyk _YO! 09:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a advertising page promoting the products mentioned. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Non-notable software in an article that serves no purpose. Note, i think the nom was, somewhat unwittingly, in bad faith with his reasoning. His personal beliefs about open source software have no bearing on inclusion on wikipedia, and any collection of this sort should be considered the same way independent of any of the softwares source status or price. Merge Given DGG's quite persuasive argument, and the intentional bias of the nom, I think it'd be most approprietaley merged into Computing π. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting it. software that calculates pi (or claims to) is not interesting without the source code because then it only is a black box that generates a number. Having the source code means having the algorithm that generates the number. Then you can tell which one is fast, slow, idiosyncratic, elegant, etc. This is much less about FOSS evangelism and more about what would make the mathematics interesting. Protonk (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i agree that it would make it interesting from a mathematical stance, but i usually interpret anything written in a nomination as part of the nomination, and it really should have no bearing on the nomination. I'm leaving it, but i'll strike it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does have a bearing on the nomination. An open algorithm is much more likely to be discussed in an encyclopedic manner (when this is the use of the tool) than a closed algorithm. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for discussion! See WP:OR. The Source availability has absolutely no bearing on inclusion. While it may appear obvious that it is, and i completely understand that, hence my use of the term "unwittingly", stand back and realise that you're pumping your own opinion into that. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....Not USER discussion. Discussion by sources. A commercial product that performs a purely mathematical function mechanically will largely receive mentions of it in sources vis it's product status. The material we will build an article from will be less in depth than a product that does the same function with the mechanism visible. Discussion of those products will occur in comp-sci and math conferences, RS blogs on the subject, etc. I wasn't born yesterday. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Programs of this sort can be notable, and they are more likely to be discussed on specialised lists than formal publications. Some academic lists can be suitably reliable sources for this sort of thing, depending on who contributes, and how the list is managed. This the world runs a little differently than most other subject; since we're a general encyclopedia, w have to adapt to the subject's manner of communicating. I'm not sure how happy I'd be with an article on a single such program, but a general article like this is another matter. I'm sure the specialists will find sufficient material. If it looks like an advertising page because of the concentration on one or two programs, the problem is very easily solved: add discussions of the other programs. We shouldn't be discussing their comparative value here, but in the article--based on suitable sources for the subject. Those who want to improve Wikipedia should try to improve article, not nominate them for deletion unless they can't be improved. I think the person nominating must show that there are no sources to sustain such a nomination when none are given; in this case, I think there are sufficient sources. The personal judgment of the nominator that this type of software is intrinsically not notable is a classic IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Let me replace "presumably" with "probably". Nothing is presumed to be notable without evidence. What I'm saying is that if "notable" means "has significant coverage in sources independent of the topic", then, say, a word processor or an IM application is more likely to be notable than a program, open source or not, that only computes π, something that, beyond the first 40 digits or so, is mainly of academic interest. You're right that the topic here isn't any particular program but programs for computing π in general, but there's already an article for that, even though this article says it's about pi programs for "home computers", which I'm not convinced is a useful distinction, especially since many of today's supercomputers are large grids of x86 boxen. —Magnus Holmgren (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic and notable topic; well written and sourced article; argument for deleation, based on assertion that such software is "presumably not notable", is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which doesn't carry much weight with me. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A concern with the current content is that it world view seems to be defined by Stu's pi page and that yahoo group. Can we be sure that they cover all pi programs in existence? Can they be considered reliable sources? But that can be fixed. —Magnus Holmgren (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable. The information there so far is a bit thin. That's a reason to add to the article, not a reason to delete it. Do not merge into numerical approximations of π; that is a separate topic that antedates software by more than 23 (twenty-three) centuries—maybe much more if you look at China, or maybe even Egypt. Software involves quite different sorts of issues, that could just be clutter in a straight math article. Development of new software need not involve new mathematical techniques, and obviously new mathematical techniques usually do not involve new software. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Computing π (with no prejudice against resplitting if someone wants to write a more comprehensive list). While I do think this could be a reasonable subject for an article, the current substantive content at Software for calculating π essentially consists of a list with two entries. It would fit into the Computing π article just fine. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
week keep it does really need some references to assert notability of these programs. For PiFast I've found theinquirer.net: World record claimed for AMD box, and Hexus.net, PCSTATS which use PiFast as a benchmark. Not the best refs but do point towards notability. --Salix alba (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, article assets notability, but needs more sources. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an AfD, not a discussion of policy on speedy delete. Assering notability doesn't make something notable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, hence the need for better sources, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Calculating thousands of digits of Pi seems to me to be a very peculiar pasttime. Nonetheless it is a popular sport and as such software to do this is likely to be notable amongst pi aficionados, even if it is not mainstream mathematics, wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia of mathematics. View this as an article about a popular hobby.Delaszk (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Computing π. Very common, and useful as a step in other calculations. Alternately, keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Computing π per DGG et al. Obviously has encyclopedic value, but not notable enough for its own stub. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 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.