Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADNESS (2nd nomination)

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 keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

MADNESS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats )

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

Non-notable computer package. No evidence of independent coverage. No independent references. It appears to have won an award (this is the link given, this appears to be the best URL), however, this URL certainly makes this award look like a pay-per-play advertising event rather than a merit-based award (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R&D 100 Awards). Note that there appear to be a number of completely separate computer systems called 'MADNESS,' (see for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MADNESS (Embedded Systems)), so please check that sources / keep arguments are for the right MADNESS. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Nothing has changed relative to the discussion from last time, when the community nearly unanimously agreed to keep the article. This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Jeff.science (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment Per WP:BEFORE, isn't Robert J. Harrison a suitable merge target? -- Trevj (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you have a reason for thinking people = software? I want to understand so I know if I should merge MSDOS into the page on Bill Gates. Jeff.science (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

To be consistent, Trevj, please also propose NWChem for deletion and merging into Robert J. Harrison. Jeff.science (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

If you recall, I !voted keep in the last AfD. I was intending to point out that we should perhaps be having a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The merge discussion went nowhere last time and no one else came close to supporting you in that position so I don't see why you want to bring it up again. You had no compelling argument then and you've not made a new one now. I reiterate that if you are a logically consistent person, you need to propose that NWChem be merged into Robert J. Harrison since you seem to conflate codes with one of their major authors (which is, of course, grossly unfair to all of the other authors involve; both NWChem and MADNESS have dozens of authors). Jeff.science (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Err, Jeff.science, is the above addressed to me or to the nominator? -- Trevj (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

It is addressed to the one that proposes merger rather than deletion. Jeff.science (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Robert J. Harrison is not a suitable merge target. That article only has a single reference, the subjects former employer, which would be non-independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep although the article needs much work, pruning out the promotion and perhaps culling the citations a bit, talking about 2013 as being future, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the constructive comments, W Nowicki. I made changes that were obvious to me. If I missed something, a more specific pointer would be useful. Jeff.science (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Well this subject is a little out of my field, but generally phrases I see like "important" "increase programmer productivity" (cite a controlled study that shows a metric?) "around the world" (where else would they be?) "leadership" (in what metric, money spent?) "workhorse" (seems like software, not a draft animal?) "noted" (that is what we are judging here) would tend to raise the red-flag of promotional language. See WP:PEACOCK but I still think it is worth a keep, since there are real sources in journals over several years etc. W Nowicki (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep I will address all of Stuart's criticisms, although this seems unnecessary since he made the identical arguments before and was soundly rejected. First, the R&D 100 Award, despite never having been won by Mr. Yates, does recognize quality software, including several other packages on Wikipedia such as Trilinos. This is a notable software package in that it is a premier computational chemistry package, and the only one to employ a novel wavelet discretization. There are many scientific papers, such as this one on wavelets. This is indeed the way that most scientific advancements are documented, and serves as documentation for a great many pages here as well. Knepley (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

There appear to be two arguments in there, which I'll address separately.

First "he made the identical arguments before and was soundly rejected." I did indeed make similar arguments before and the result " no consensus. The actions of the major contributor to this AFD have been contemptable - full of badgering, and ad hominem arguments, PLUS all the quite-likely canvassed SPA's that is utterly inappropriate and shameful. When I reduce the AFD to the only non-SPA and truly policy-based arguments, we narrow the discussion down to a handful of valid entries. Take in toto, those few provide no specific consensus to delete at this time" I see no rejection of my arguments in that summary.

Secondly "There are many scientific papers, such as this one on wavelets." The given paper is an exemplar of what's wrong with the article, in that it's not independent---the authors of the paper are the authors / architects / creators of this software and what we're looking for under the WP:GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Note that peer review is not about independence, it's about quality.

Stuartyeates (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2013 (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.