Talk:Algebrator
Non notable software falling under WP:OR (the unique reference is by the author of the software) and WP:SOAP
It was contested by Ks0stm(talk · contribs) on 13 November 2012 with the comment:
Restored per request on my talk page
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
I am an adult who recently returned to school and I purchased this software last night. When I get a few minutes, I'll do some examples with it and upload some screen shots. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Reply
A laundry list, until they can be sorted and included as appropriate in the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yappy2bhere (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- That would be good. Notability guidance requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far the only source that is not written by the author of the software is the four-paragraph mention in TechTrends , and I have to say that notability is not yet established. Deltahedron (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Incidentally, that source describes it as an "algebra tutor", not a "computer algebra system". Deltahedron (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Peer-reviewed publications are "independent of the subject." Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- An interesting view. Notability guideline clearly states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. Can you provide a pointer to your claimed exception, or is it just a personal opinion? Deltahedron (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- WP:NRVE: "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." In contrast, WP:SIGCOV, which you're quoting but misrepresenting, states in full that
These are not self-published papers, and Jurkovic neither produces nor has a strong connection to the peer-reviewed publications that accepted them. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. [ref]Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.[/ref]
- WP:NRVE: "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." In contrast, WP:SIGCOV, which you're quoting but misrepresenting, states in full that
- An interesting view. Notability guideline clearly states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. Can you provide a pointer to your claimed exception, or is it just a personal opinion? Deltahedron (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Peer-reviewed publications are "independent of the subject." Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Which reminds me of this, Deltahedron. (It's humor - there's no need to parse it for wiki-appropriateness.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- These are works produced by someone with a strong connection with the subject of the article, and hence are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. Deltahedron (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Moreover, in this case, a single peer reviewed paper is not a strong evidence of notability. Otherwise, every scientific result would deserve its own article in WP. D.Lazard (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- These are works produced by someone with a strong connection with the subject of the article, and hence are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. Deltahedron (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- The work referred to by the policy is the publication, not the paper. The sources are WP:RS because the publication exercises oversight and discretion in what it permits to be published. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Yes, these sources are reliable sources, but they're not independent reliable sources. I generally take scientific publications with >100 cites (excluding self-cites) as indicating that coverage exists in those citing publications. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- The work referred to by the policy is the publication, not the paper. The sources are WP:RS because the publication exercises oversight and discretion in what it permits to be published. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Algebrator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004140109/http://rspublication.com/ijeted/march%2012/11.pdf to http://rspublication.com/ijeted/march%2012/11.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check }} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Reply