Undo changes to other editors' remarks made by GuyMacon per WP:TALKO. Even if you think they're typos, please leave it to the other editors to fix their mistakes. |
Edits are specifically allowed under WP:TPO See discussion at User talk:Guymacon. Undid revision 426914683 by Msnicki (talk) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Delete.''' To establish notability, [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] ask for multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. I don't think they're there. The requirement for independence eliminates the papers by Harry Cheng, the creator of Ch, plus those of [http://iel.ucdavis.edu/publication/2007/CAEE.pdf Matt Campbell] and [http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MS.2006.27 Zhaoqing Wang], both of whom have co-authored papers with Harry Cheng. (In addition, Cheng was the director of the UC Davis Integration Engineering Laboratory where Campbell was a master's candidate.)<p>Two more of the sources are also not useful because they're not actually commenting on Ch. Both the Glassborow and the Huber articles are actually book reviews of Cheng's textbook for teaching C. Yes, it apparently comes with a CD containing Ch, but I don't think that's what they were reviewing. I think they were a reviewing a book about how to teach C.<p>The independent secondary sources we're left with are the [http://replay.web.archive.org/20011116220556/http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1776/byt20011031s0002/1105_heller.html Heller], [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1049264 Gary Wang] and [http://drdobbs.com/184401877?queryText=ChSDK Wilson] articles. They're weak.<p>The Heller article is a First Impression column article, not featured review and it says so. A First Impression is just that; it just came out and here's what it looks like, who knows if it's going anywhere. Furthermore, (from the [[Byte_(magazine)#The_controversial_end_of_Byte|article on BYTE]]) BYTE ''"ceased publication with the July 1998 issue, laid off all the staff and shut down Byte's rather large product-testing lab ... In 1999, CMP revived Byte as a web-only publication"'', meaning this was a web column, not even a column in print. The Wilson is similar; it's a column mention.<p>The Gary Wang article is clearly a not any sort of peer-reviewed article. It's not a real review by an actual unbiased reviewer; you can see that in the [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]] language and the lack of even a single identified shortcoming. It's not surprising to see that SoftIntegration quotes Gary Wang in their [http://www.softintegration.com/company/press/20011002.html press release]. It's surprising that Spectrum would allow this to be printed but not that shocking.<p>When I take these very weak sources together with the aggressive history of spamming Wikipedia (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C_shell&action=historysubmit&diff=417462074&oldid=414889411 here]) and [http://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Scientists-Interpretive-Approach-Companion/product-reviews/0077290461/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending Amazon] wtih SPAs and the endless relitigating (we're now into the 4th week of debate on this page!) and the unsavory canvassing, I think the right answer is delete. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Delete.''' To establish notability, [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] ask for multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. I don't think they're there. The requirement for independence eliminates the papers by Harry Cheng, the creator of Ch, plus those of [http://iel.ucdavis.edu/publication/2007/CAEE.pdf Matt Campbell] and [http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MS.2006.27 Zhaoqing Wang], both of whom have co-authored papers with Harry Cheng. (In addition, Cheng was the director of the UC Davis Integration Engineering Laboratory where Campbell was a master's candidate.)<p>Two more of the sources are also not useful because they're not actually commenting on Ch. Both the Glassborow and the Huber articles are actually book reviews of Cheng's textbook for teaching C. Yes, it apparently comes with a CD containing Ch, but I don't think that's what they were reviewing. I think they were a reviewing a book about how to teach C.<p>The independent secondary sources we're left with are the [http://replay.web.archive.org/20011116220556/http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1776/byt20011031s0002/1105_heller.html Heller], [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1049264 Gary Wang] and [http://drdobbs.com/184401877?queryText=ChSDK Wilson] articles. They're weak.<p>The Heller article is a First Impression column article, not featured review and it says so. A First Impression is just that; it just came out and here's what it looks like, who knows if it's going anywhere. Furthermore, (from the [[Byte_(magazine)#The_controversial_end_of_Byte|article on BYTE]]) BYTE ''"ceased publication with the July 1998 issue, laid off all the staff and shut down Byte's rather large product-testing lab ... In 1999, CMP revived Byte as a web-only publication"'', meaning this was a web column, not even a column in print. The Wilson is similar; it's a column mention.<p>The Gary Wang article is clearly a not any sort of peer-reviewed article. It's not a real review by an actual unbiased reviewer; you can see that in the [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]] language and the lack of even a single identified shortcoming. It's not surprising to see that SoftIntegration quotes Gary Wang in their [http://www.softintegration.com/company/press/20011002.html press release]. It's surprising that Spectrum would allow this to be printed but not that shocking.<p>When I take these very weak sources together with the aggressive history of spamming Wikipedia (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C_shell&action=historysubmit&diff=417462074&oldid=414889411 here]) and [http://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Scientists-Interpretive-Approach-Companion/product-reviews/0077290461/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending Amazon] wtih SPAs and the endless relitigating (we're now into the 4th week of debate on this page!) and the unsavory canvassing, I think the right answer is delete. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Can you substantiate where papers authored by an interested party, but published by an editorially independent reliable source, are somehow inappropriate? Remember, our guidelines look at who paid for the publication of a paper, not who authored it. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 08:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::[[WP:CORPDEPTH]] states that sources used to establish notability may not include ''"any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it"''. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
:::Why are you applying [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] to an article that is about neither an organization nor a company? [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | ::::Because that's what it says to do. From [[WP:CORPDEPTH]], Primary criteria: ''"A [[company]], [[corporation]], [[organization]], [[school]], [[team]], [[religion]], [[group]], [[product]], or [[service]] is '''notable''' if it has been the subject of significant coverage in [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]]s. Such sources must be [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]], and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."'' [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: |
:::::Ah, okay. Missed that; thanks! [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 15:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | :::: |
||
:::::*Ah, okay. Missed that; thanks! [[User:Chaos5023|—chaos5023]] ([[User talk:Chaos5023|talk]]) 15:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[WP:CORPDEPTH]] Provides the following context for the above quote: "''A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.''" Looking at the entire section and the nature opf all the other example given, it is clear what is being prohibited. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
::::::[[WP:CORPDEPTH]] Provides the following context for the above quote: "''A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.''" Looking at the entire section and the nature opf all the other example given, it is clear what is being prohibited. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment:''' Save for {{user|Msnicki}}, who has already participated in this AfD, I have notified the participants of [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter]] about the amended closure and the AfD. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Comment:''' Save for {{user|Msnicki}}, who has already participated in this AfD, I have notified the participants of [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter]] about the amended closure and the AfD. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The reason we prefer RS'es with ''independent'' editorial control is that it makes all this essentially moot. Dr. Dobbs, BYTE, and IEEE Spectrum are perfectly fine RS'es. The software has received multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent RS magazines, and thus meets the GNG. The associations of the software authors to these RS articles is not an issue, unless one wants to impeach the editorial independence of these publications. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 08:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The reason we prefer RS'es with ''independent'' editorial control is that it makes all this essentially moot. Dr. Dobbs, BYTE, and IEEE Spectrum are perfectly fine RS'es. The software has received multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent RS magazines, and thus meets the GNG. The associations of the software authors to these RS articles is not an issue, unless one wants to impeach the editorial independence of these publications. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 08:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
: |
:[[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] both require that sources used to establish notability must be independent of the subject. They do not say independence is unnecessary just so long as the magazine that published it was independent. The whole thing, starting with the author, has to be independent. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::In my opinion, the above is a overly narrow and legalistic interpretation of [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. The spirit of the policy is clearly explained in [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] itself: "''Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article.''" [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 16:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
::In my opinion, the above is a overly narrow and legalistic interpretation of [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. The spirit of the policy is clearly explained in [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] itself: "''Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article.''" [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 16:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. There are in-depth articles in two top mass-market computing magazines: Byte Magazine (2001), Dr. Dobb's Journal (2004). There are also in-depth articles in less prominent magazines, as well as numerous less focused mentions in top magazines that together span a decade. They are all cited in the article. and together go well above the standard required by GNG. |
*'''Keep'''. There are in-depth articles in two top mass-market computing magazines: Byte Magazine (2001), Dr. Dobb's Journal (2004). There are also in-depth articles in less prominent magazines, as well as numerous less focused mentions in top magazines that together span a decade. They are all cited in the article. and together go well above the standard required by GNG. |
||
Line 27: | Line 23: | ||
*'''Keep''' The Heller article is lengthy, substantial, and in a solid publication. The Wilson article also offers expansive coverage of the topic at-hand. Clearly, the Wang article, by nature of its inclusion in an edited publication, is valid. We decry Wiki articles for having peacock terms; we don't generally turn away articles for being based on reliable sources that happen to use what might, in an encyclopedia article, be called peacock terms. It is neither surprising nor relevant that somebody would quote a positive article about their product in their product's marketing materials. Keep. [[User:Ginsengbomb|<font color=#AAAAFF>'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|<font color=#D50000>bomb</font color>]] 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The Heller article is lengthy, substantial, and in a solid publication. The Wilson article also offers expansive coverage of the topic at-hand. Clearly, the Wang article, by nature of its inclusion in an edited publication, is valid. We decry Wiki articles for having peacock terms; we don't generally turn away articles for being based on reliable sources that happen to use what might, in an encyclopedia article, be called peacock terms. It is neither surprising nor relevant that somebody would quote a positive article about their product in their product's marketing materials. Keep. [[User:Ginsengbomb|<font color=#AAAAFF>'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|<font color=#D50000>bomb</font color>]] 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The above mentioned sources are enough to establish notability. In addition, [http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.19/19.09/CInterpreter/index.html Mactech has a review], the Ch interpreter is very commonly embedded in [[LabVIEW]], and is sometimes used to program [[Lego Mindstorms]]. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The above mentioned sources are enough to establish notability. In addition, [http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.19/19.09/CInterpreter/index.html Mactech has a review], the Ch interpreter is very commonly embedded in [[LabVIEW]], and is sometimes used to program [[Lego Mindstorms]]. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | :The Mactech "review" is by Matt Campbell. He is not independent, having co-authored [http://iel.ucdavis.edu/publication/2007/CAEE.pdf a paper on Ch] with Harry Cheng and having received his Masters while studying under Cheng. (Read the bio at the end of the paper.) This is even more blatant than the Spectrum article; they've allowed Campbell to review a product he'd worked on himself! <del>Undoubtedly,</del>It seems likely this was not disclosed. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | : |
||
::I was about to write that you should not make serious accusations such as "Undoubtedly, this was not disclosed" without actual evidence of wrongdoing, but then I noticed that the Mactech review was published in 2003 while the paper was submitted in 2005 and published in 2006. Not having a time machine or reliable precognition, I think it safe to assume that he didn't disclose something that was several years in the future. |
::I was about to write that you should not make serious accusations such as "Undoubtedly, this was not disclosed" without actual evidence of wrongdoing, but then I noticed that the Mactech review was published in 2003 while the paper was submitted in 2005 and published in 2006. Not having a time machine or reliable precognition, I think it safe to assume that he didn't disclose something that was several years in the future. |
||
Line 37: | Line 32: | ||
* '''Keep''' Weak article on a perfectly horrible topic. I ask myself why such a thing existed post 2000, why it was still thought to be a good idea by then (we no longer had the grief of the 1980s), why it was based on C of all things and a comment like, "Students in disciplines other than computer science can just learn C" gives me the crawling horrors. In particular, we seem to have a long article here that still gives a poorer flavour of what it's really about and why it came to be, than the IEEE paper's abstract does. |
* '''Keep''' Weak article on a perfectly horrible topic. I ask myself why such a thing existed post 2000, why it was still thought to be a good idea by then (we no longer had the grief of the 1980s), why it was based on C of all things and a comment like, "Students in disciplines other than computer science can just learn C" gives me the crawling horrors. In particular, we seem to have a long article here that still gives a poorer flavour of what it's really about and why it came to be, than the IEEE paper's abstract does. |
||
: That all said though, when a product gets in-depth coverage like this at the level of journals like the IEEE Spectrum (and I hope Wtshymanski will accept that ''Spectrum'' isn't obscure), then that's notability, as we define it. I don't like it, but I can't give reason to delete it. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
: That all said though, when a product gets in-depth coverage like this at the level of journals like the IEEE Spectrum (and I hope Wtshymanski will accept that ''Spectrum'' isn't obscure), then that's notability, as we define it. I don't like it, but I can't give reason to delete it. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
* '' |
* '''Delete''' same reasons as before - [[WP:RS]] wants a knowledgeable source, which takes out the Huber source. Other editors appear to be arguing that Wang's close associates and even Cheng's papers constitute sources for the sake of notability. [[User:Tedickey|TEDickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 10:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
: From my viewpoint, the Wang paper in IEEE Spectrum is a good ref for notability. Is there a reason why you would discount it? Even if there's a connection between Wang & Cheng, I trust the editors of IEEE Spectrum to publish an article free of any bias to a level that would be a problem for us. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
: From my viewpoint, the Wang paper in IEEE Spectrum is a good ref for notability. Is there a reason why you would discount it? Even if there's a connection between Wang & Cheng, I trust the editors of IEEE Spectrum to publish an article free of any bias to a level that would be a problem for us. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: The point was already made in the previous round: a journal will print based on their perceived user-interest (whether novelty or just topicality), will peer-review full articles but not necessarily other content, and bias of the type we're discussing is not a factor in the choice whether to accept or reject. [[User:Tedickey|TEDickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 13:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
:: The point was already made in the previous round: a journal will print based on their perceived user-interest (whether novelty or just topicality), will peer-review full articles but not necessarily other content, and bias of the type we're discussing is not a factor in the choice whether to accept or reject. [[User:Tedickey|TEDickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 13:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:16, 1 May 2011
Ch interpreter
- Ch interpreter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13. Primary argument for deletion appears to be lack of notability. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. To establish notability, WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH ask for multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. I don't think they're there. The requirement for independence eliminates the papers by Harry Cheng, the creator of Ch, plus those of Matt Campbell and Zhaoqing Wang, both of whom have co-authored papers with Harry Cheng. (In addition, Cheng was the director of the UC Davis Integration Engineering Laboratory where Campbell was a master's candidate.)
Two more of the sources are also not useful because they're not actually commenting on Ch. Both the Glassborow and the Huber articles are actually book reviews of Cheng's textbook for teaching C. Yes, it apparently comes with a CD containing Ch, but I don't think that's what they were reviewing. I think they were a reviewing a book about how to teach C.
The independent secondary sources we're left with are the Heller, Gary Wang and Wilson articles. They're weak.
The Heller article is a First Impression column article, not featured review and it says so. A First Impression is just that; it just came out and here's what it looks like, who knows if it's going anywhere. Furthermore, (from the article on BYTE) BYTE "ceased publication with the July 1998 issue, laid off all the staff and shut down Byte's rather large product-testing lab ... In 1999, CMP revived Byte as a web-only publication", meaning this was a web column, not even a column in print. The Wilson is similar; it's a column mention.
The Gary Wang article is clearly a not any sort of peer-reviewed article. It's not a real review by an actual unbiased reviewer; you can see that in the peacock language and the lack of even a single identified shortcoming. It's not surprising to see that SoftIntegration quotes Gary Wang in their press release. It's surprising that Spectrum would allow this to be printed but not that shocking.
When I take these very weak sources together with the aggressive history of spamming Wikipedia (e.g., here) and Amazon wtih SPAs and the endless relitigating (we're now into the 4th week of debate on this page!) and the unsavory canvassing, I think the right answer is delete. Msnicki (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you substantiate where papers authored by an interested party, but published by an editorially independent reliable source, are somehow inappropriate? Remember, our guidelines look at who paid for the publication of a paper, not who authored it. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CORPDEPTH states that sources used to establish notability may not include "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it". Msnicki (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you applying Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to an article that is about neither an organization nor a company? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's what it says to do. From WP:CORPDEPTH, Primary criteria: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Msnicki (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Missed that; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CORPDEPTH Provides the following context for the above quote: "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." Looking at the entire section and the nature opf all the other example given, it is clear what is being prohibited. Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Missed that; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's what it says to do. From WP:CORPDEPTH, Primary criteria: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Msnicki (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you applying Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to an article that is about neither an organization nor a company? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CORPDEPTH states that sources used to establish notability may not include "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it". Msnicki (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Save for Msnicki (talk · contribs), who has already participated in this AfD, I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter about the amended closure and the AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The reason we prefer RS'es with independent editorial control is that it makes all this essentially moot. Dr. Dobbs, BYTE, and IEEE Spectrum are perfectly fine RS'es. The software has received multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent RS magazines, and thus meets the GNG. The associations of the software authors to these RS articles is not an issue, unless one wants to impeach the editorial independence of these publications. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH both require that sources used to establish notability must be independent of the subject. They do not say independence is unnecessary just so long as the magazine that published it was independent. The whole thing, starting with the author, has to be independent. Msnicki (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the above is a overly narrow and legalistic interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH. The spirit of the policy is clearly explained in WP:CORPDEPTH itself: "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article." Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. There are in-depth articles in two top mass-market computing magazines: Byte Magazine (2001), Dr. Dobb's Journal (2004). There are also in-depth articles in less prominent magazines, as well as numerous less focused mentions in top magazines that together span a decade. They are all cited in the article. and together go well above the standard required by GNG.
- It is true that peer reviewed research papers do not automatically establish notability if they only come from one small workgroup or a tiny set of collaborators. But we don't even have to examine whether this is the case here. Hans Adler 08:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The Heller article is lengthy, substantial, and in a solid publication. The Wilson article also offers expansive coverage of the topic at-hand. Clearly, the Wang article, by nature of its inclusion in an edited publication, is valid. We decry Wiki articles for having peacock terms; we don't generally turn away articles for being based on reliable sources that happen to use what might, in an encyclopedia article, be called peacock terms. It is neither surprising nor relevant that somebody would quote a positive article about their product in their product's marketing materials. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The above mentioned sources are enough to establish notability. In addition, Mactech has a review, the Ch interpreter is very commonly embedded in LabVIEW, and is sometimes used to program Lego Mindstorms. Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Mactech "review" is by Matt Campbell. He is not independent, having co-authored a paper on Ch with Harry Cheng and having received his Masters while studying under Cheng. (Read the bio at the end of the paper.) This is even more blatant than the Spectrum article; they've allowed Campbell to review a product he'd worked on himself!
Undoubtedly,It seems likely this was not disclosed. Msnicki (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)- I was about to write that you should not make serious accusations such as "Undoubtedly, this was not disclosed" without actual evidence of wrongdoing, but then I noticed that the Mactech review was published in 2003 while the paper was submitted in 2005 and published in 2006. Not having a time machine or reliable precognition, I think it safe to assume that he didn't disclose something that was several years in the future.
- If I review a product on my own webpage, that does not show notability - pretty much every garage band has a website. If I review a product and Mactech or Byte publishes it, the fact that a well-know computer magazine with a large subscription base made the editorial decision to publish a review of the software is, in itself, evidence of prior notability (they don't review products unless they are notable) and also establishes notability (even if it wasn't notable before Mactech or Byte published the review, it became notable at that point). Evidence that the author has a conflict of interest calls the accuracy of the review into question, not the notability of the product reviewed. Unless you have evidence that the creator of the software bribed the editors of Mactech and Byte, you must presume that the decision to publish the review was not made by the author of the review. Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Weak article on a perfectly horrible topic. I ask myself why such a thing existed post 2000, why it was still thought to be a good idea by then (we no longer had the grief of the 1980s), why it was based on C of all things and a comment like, "Students in disciplines other than computer science can just learn C" gives me the crawling horrors. In particular, we seem to have a long article here that still gives a poorer flavour of what it's really about and why it came to be, than the IEEE paper's abstract does.
- That all said though, when a product gets in-depth coverage like this at the level of journals like the IEEE Spectrum (and I hope Wtshymanski will accept that Spectrum isn't obscure), then that's notability, as we define it. I don't like it, but I can't give reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete same reasons as before - WP:RS wants a knowledgeable source, which takes out the Huber source. Other editors appear to be arguing that Wang's close associates and even Cheng's papers constitute sources for the sake of notability. TEDickey (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- From my viewpoint, the Wang paper in IEEE Spectrum is a good ref for notability. Is there a reason why you would discount it? Even if there's a connection between Wang & Cheng, I trust the editors of IEEE Spectrum to publish an article free of any bias to a level that would be a problem for us. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The point was already made in the previous round: a journal will print based on their perceived user-interest (whether novelty or just topicality), will peer-review full articles but not necessarily other content, and bias of the type we're discussing is not a factor in the choice whether to accept or reject. TEDickey (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Seems a very clear-cut case at this point. Collect (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The articles about ch have appeared in respected journals. When evaluating articles about little software products we are often struggling to find any coverage at all from a reliable source; this is more than enough. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Plenty of valid, notability-establishing cites. Wang's connection to Cheng is irrelevant; we're considering IEEE Spectrum, not Wang. The only time the author is the source is in a WP:SPS situation. We also need not rake source citation content over the coals for reasons to disqualify it, like speaking too positively of its topic, that are conjured out of nowhere rather than appearing in policy or guidelines; the question we're asking is whether it provides significant coverage, i.e. enough to provide a meaningful chunk of Wikipedia article content. These conditions are sufficiently met. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)